Sy v. Bondi

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 PAPA SAMBA SY, Case No. 2:25-cv-00276-RAJ-TLF 7 Petitioner, v. REPORT AND 8 RECOMMENDATION PAMELA BONDI, et al., 9 Noted for May 23, 2025 Respondent. 10

11 Petitioner initiated this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 immigration habeas corpus petition to 12 obtain release from immigration detention. Dkt. 1. On April 21, 2025, the Government 13 filed a Notice of Change in Petitioner’s Custody Status, informing the Court that U.S. 14 Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed Petitioner to Senegal on March 29, 15 2025. Dkt. 10. Because Petitioner is no longer in immigration custody, the Government 16 states Petitioner’s case is moot. Id. The Court ordered Petitioner, who is represented by 17 the Federal Public Defender’s Office (“FPD”), to respond to the Government’s notice 18 and address the Petitioner’s custody status and whether the habeas corpus petition is 19 moot and should be dismissed. Dkt. 11. FPD filed a response on April 25, 2025, 20 confirming Petitioner has been removed to Senegal and joined the Government’s 21 recommendation to the Court to dismiss the petition as moot. Dkt. 12. 22 Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, federal courts may adjudicate only 23 actual, ongoing cases or controversies. Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199 24 (1988). “For a habeas petition to continue to present a live controversy after the 1 petitioner’s release or deportation . . . there must be some remaining ‘collateral 2 consequence’ that may be redressed by success on the petition.” Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 3 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2007). 4 Because Petitioner’s habeas petition challenges only the length of his

5 immigration detention, his removal causes this case to become moot. Id. at 1065. There 6 is no collateral consequence that could be redressed by the Court, and petitioner’s 7 habeas petition should be dismissed. See id. 8 Accordingly, the Court recommends that Petitioner’s habeas petition and this 9 action be DISMISSED without prejudice as the matter is now moot. A proposed order 10 accompanies this Report and Recommendation. 11 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the parties shall 12 have fourteen (14) days from service of this report to file written objections. See also 13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for 14 purposes of de novo review by the district judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and can

15 result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 16 U.S. 140, 142 (1985); Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations 17 omitted). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Clerk is 18 directed to set the matter for consideration on May 23, 2025, as noted in the caption. 19 Dated this 8th day of May, 2025. 20 21 22 A

23 Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge 24