Yoni Amilcar Funes Lucas v. Warden of the Golden State Annex ICE Detention Center, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 29, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-00676
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 YONI AMILCAR FUNES LUCAS, Case No. 1:26-cv-00676-JLT-HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 13 v. SEVEN-DAY DEADLINE 14 WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE 15 ANNEX ICE DETENTION CENTER, et al., 16 Respondent. 17 18 19 Petitioner, an immigrant detainee in U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) 20 custody at the California City Detention Facility in California City, California, proceeds with 21 counsel on his first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 22 challenging his detention as, inter alia, a violation of his procedural and substantive due process 23 rights under the Fifth Amendment. (Doc. 14 at 13-17). Respondent filed an Answer on May 12, 24 2026, and Petitioner filed a traverse on May 19, 2026. (Docs. 16, 17). 25 Federal courts have an independent duty to consider their own subject-matter jurisdiction. 26 Fed. Rule of Civ. P. 12(h)(3); United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 27 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). Under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, a federal court’s 28 jurisdiction is limited to adjudication of live cases and controversies. See Hollingsworth v. Perry, 1 570 U.S. 693, 705 (2013) (“Article III demands that an actual controversy persist throughout all 2 stages of litigation.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Arizonans for Official English 3 v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997) (Article III's “cases” and “controversies” limitation requires 4 that “an actual controversy . . . be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the 5 complaint is filed,”) (internal quotation marks omitted). To maintain a claim, a litigant must 6 continue to have a personal stake in all stages of the judicial proceeding. Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 7 1061, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal citation omitted). 8 In the habeas context, the case or controversy requirement mandates dismissal as moot if 9 (1) the petitioner has received the requested relief, or (2) the court is unable to provide the 10 requested relief. Aniyeloye v. Birkholz, 2023 WL 4868545, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 31, 2023) (citing 11 Munoz v. Rowland, 104 F.3d 1096, 1097-98 (9th Cir. 1997)); see also Dominguez v. Kernan, 906 12 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2018) (a case is moot when it is “impossible for a court to grant any 13 effectual relief” on petitioner’s claim). 14 The Court’s sua sponte search for Petitioner in the ICE Online Detainee Locator System 15 returned zero matching records.1 Because Petitioner may no longer be in ICE custody, the Court 16 must determine whether this action is moot before reaching the merits. 17 //// 18 //// 19 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 20 1. Within seven (7) days from service of this Order, Respondent shall submit 21 supplemental briefing addressing whether this action is moot in light if Petitioner’s 22 apparent release from ICE custody, as reflected on the ICE Online Detainee Locator 23 System. 24 2. If, instead, Petitioner has been transferred to another detention facility that is not 25

26 1 See ICE Detainee Locator, https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/search (last visited June 26, 2026). The Court may take judicial notice of information on official government websites. McClure v. Ives, 2010 WL 27 716193, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2010); see also United States v. Basher, 629 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2011) (taking judicial notice of the Bureau of Prisons’ publicly available inmate locator). 28 ] reflected on the ICE Online Detainee Locator System, Respondent shall notify the 2 Court of Petitioner’s current location. 3 4 Dated: _ June 26, 2026 ooo. Th. Bareh Hack 5 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA ‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28