Rivero v. Scott

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 BRAYAN ANTHONY RIVERO, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00593-LK 11 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 12 v. RECOMMENDATION 13 BRUCE SCOTT, 14 Respondent. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 17 United States Magistrate Judge Grady J. Leupold, Dkt. No. 11, recommending that the Court 18 dismiss Petitioner Brayan Rivero’s proposed 28 U.S.C. § 2241 immigration habeas petition, Dkt. 19 No. 1. 20 On April 3, 2025, the Clerk sent Mr. Rivero a Notice of Filing Deficiency, noting that Mr. 21 Rivero had not paid the filing fee or sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. No. 22 2. The Clerk informed Mr. Rivero that these deficiencies had to be corrected by May 5, 2025, and 23 cautioned him that the failure to do so “may affect the status of [his] case, including dismissal of 24 1 the action by the Court.” Id. at 1. The Notice was sent to his address on file but returned as 2 undeliverable. Dkt. No. 4. 3 On July 15, 2025, Judge Leupold issued an R&R recommending that the Court dismiss Mr. 4 Rivero’s proposed petition because Mr. Rivero has neither paid the filing fee nor submitted an IFP

5 application. Dkt. No. 11 at 2. Objections to the R&R were due by July 29, 2025, id., but Mr. Rivero 6 has not filed objections. The R&R sent to his address on file was returned as undeliverable. Dkt. 7 No. 12. 8 Regardless of whether Mr. Rivero received the Notice of Filing Deficiency or the R&R, 9 dismissal is warranted for two reasons. First, Mr. Rivero has not paid the filing fee or applied to 10 proceed IFP in the more than four months this case has been pending. Second, Mr. Rivero’s 11 petition is moot because he has since been removed from the United States and is no longer subject 12 to detention here. See Dkt. No. 1 at 2 (seeking release from detention); Dkt. No. 8-1 at 2 (stating 13 that “Petitioner was removed from the United States to Venezuela on April 4, 2025”); see also 14 Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that “for a habeas petition to continue

15 to present a live controversy after the petitioner’s release or deportation . . . there must be some 16 remaining ‘collateral consequence’ that may be redressed by success on the petition.”). 17 Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Leupold’s Report and Recommendation, Dkt. No. 18 11, and DISMISSES Mr. Rivero’s proposed habeas petition without prejudice. 19 Dated this 7th day of August, 2025. 20 A 21 Lauren King United States District Judge 22 23 24