Yordany Rodriguez Marmol v. Department of Homeland Security

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: November 14, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-02236
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 JS-6 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 YORDANY RODRIGUEZ Case No. 5:25-cv-2236-DSF-RAO MARMOL, 12 Petitioner, 13 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 AS MOOT DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 15 SECURITY, 16 Respondent. 17 18 On August 25, 2025, Petitioner Yordany Rodriguez Marmol (“Petitioner”)— 19 a then-immigrant detainee being held at Adelanto Immigration Processing Center and 20 proceeding pro se—filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus by a person in federal 21 custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). Dkt. No. 1 (“Pet.”). The Petition 22 seeks Petitioner’s immediate release on the grounds that his detention violates the 23 Fourth Amendment, Section 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the 24 Fifth Amendment. Pet. at 6. In addition to his immediate release, the Petition asks 25 that Respondent be enjoined from further unlawfully detaining Petitioner. Id. 26 On October 7, 2025, Respondent filed its Answer. Dkt. No. 8 (“Answer”). 27 The Answer asks the Court to deny the Petition on the grounds that it fails to allege 28 a specific factual basis for habeas relief, Petitioner’s detention by Immigration and 1 Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) pending removal is authorized by statute, and the 2 Petition names the improper party as respondent. Answer at 2. 3 After independently conducting a public records check of ICE’s online 4 detainee locator and finding no information about Petitioner, the Court directed 5 Respondent to file a status report regarding Petitioner’s current custody status. Dkt. 6 No. 9. On November 6, 2025, Respondent filed a status report (“Status Report”) 7 along with a supplemental declaration of Deportation Officer L. Palacios, and an 8 exhibit. Dkt. Nos. 10, 10-1 (“Palacios Decl.”), 10-2. The Status Report states that 9 Petitioner was removed to Mexico on October 28, 2025, and attaches a copy of ICE 10 Form I-205 Warrant of Removal/Deportation, showing that Petitioner was removed 11 from the United States on that date. Palacios Decl. ¶ 4; see also Dkt. No. 10-2. For 12 the following reasons, the Court dismisses the Petition as moot. 13 A federal court’s jurisdiction is limited to actual cases or live controversies. 14 United States v. Yepez, 108 F.4th 1093, 1099 (9th Cir. 2024) (citing Lewis v. Cont’l 15 Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990)). This constitutional limitation to cases or 16 controversies necessarily requires that parties to the litigation have a personal stake 17 in the outcome at all stages of judicial proceedings. Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. 18 Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 71–72 (2013). Because federal courts are prohibited from 19 adjudicating matters that do not affect the rights of present litigants, a suit is rendered 20 moot when there exists no live issue for the court to grant relief upon. Chafin v. 21 Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 172 (2013) (highlighting that Article III of the U.S. 22 Constitution forbids the issuance of advisory opinions where no live case or 23 controversy exists). “For a habeas petition to continue to present a live controversy 24 after the petitioner’s release or deportation . . . there must be some remaining 25 ‘collateral consequence’ that may be redressed by success on the petition.” Abdala 26 v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2007). 27 In bringing this action, Petitioner sought release from immigration detention. 28 Petitioner was removed to Mexico on October 28, 2025. Dkt. No. 10. Because there 1 | is no further relief that this Court can provide—the matter no longer involves a “live 2 || controversy.” Jd. 3 For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is dismissed without prejudice as moot. 4 5 | DATED: November 14, 2025 if ( \ +. ) DALE S. FISCHER 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28