1 2 3 JS-6 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EASTERN DIVISION 11 LE VAN MINH, ) No. 5:25-cv-02245-HDV-JDE ) 12 ) Petitioner, ) JUDGMENT 13 ) ) 14 v. ) ) 15 )

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND )

16 SECURITY, et al., ) ) 17 ) Respondents. ) 18 19 On August 18, 2025, Le Van Minh (“Petitioner”), a federal detainee 20 proceeding pro se, filed a two-page Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. 1 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). Petitioner purports 22 to challenge his “indefinite detention” by Immigration and Customs 23 Enforcement (“ICE”). He alleges that a final order of removal was issued on 24 January 7, 2010, “but [ICE] has been unable to remove” him. He was allegedly 25 detained by ICE on June 8, 2025. See Pet. at 1. Petitioner contends his 26 detention violates the standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. 27 Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), as he has been detained longer than six months 28 and Petitioner’s home country “still refuse[s] to accept him.” Id. at 1-2. 1 The assigned magistrate judge issued an Order directing Petitioner to 2 show cause why the Petition should not be dismissed under Rule 4 of the Rules 3 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Dkt. 5 4 (“OSC”). The OSC and all documents served upon Petitioner since the filing 5 of the Petition have been returned as undeliverable by the U.S. Mail. See Dkt. 6 6-9. Petitioner did not respond to the OSC within the time permitted. 7 On October 29, 2025, counsel for Respondents advised that Petitioner 8 was removed from the United States on or about September 2, 2025, and is no 9 longer in federal custody. Dkt. 12. Respondents request the Petition be 10 dismissed as moot. Id. 11 The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Constitution 12 deprives federal courts of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor 13 Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983) (per curiam). “To qualify as a case fit 14 for federal court adjudication, an actual controversy must be extant at all 15 stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” Arizonans for 16 Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997) (citation and internal 17 quotation marks omitted); see also Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 18 (1975) (there must be a real and substantial controversy at the time the case is 19 decided). “Mootness is jurisdictional.” Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 999 20 (9th Cir. 2005). Federal courts do not have the power to decide a case that does 21 not affect the rights of a litigant in the case before it. Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 22 F.3d 517, 527-28 (9th Cir. 1996). 23 “[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the 24 parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” City of Erie v. Pap’s 25 A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 287 (2000) (citation omitted). Unless the prevailing party 26 can obtain effective relief, “any opinion as to the legality of the challenged 27 action would be advisory.” Id. “[A federal action] should . . . be dismissed as 28 moot when, by virtue of an intervening event, a [federal court] cannot grant 1 ‘any effectual relief’ whatever in favor of the [party seeking relief].” Calderon 2 v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996) (per curiam) (citation omitted). A habeas 3 petition is moot where the petitioner “seeks relief [that] cannot be ‘redressed by 4 a favorable . . . decision’ of the court issuing a writ of habeas corpus.” Burnett, 5 432 F.3d at 1000-01 (citation omitted); see also Kittel v. Thomas, 620 F.3d 6 949, 951-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (as amended) (habeas petition dismissed as moot 7 where there was no legal dispute remaining for the court to decide). 8 By the Petition, Petitioner sought release because immigration officials 9 have “been unable to remove Petitioner,” leaving him detained “indefinitely.” 10 Pet at 1. However, Petitioner has now been removed from the United States 11 and is no longer in Respondents’ custody. As such, Petitioner’s challenge to his 12 alleged “indefinite detention” is now moot. See Nsinano v. Barr, 808 F. App’x 13 554, 555 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 14 2007)); Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 1991) (“By his 15 petition for habeas corpus, [the petitioner] has requested only release from 16 custody. Because he has been released, there is no further relief we can 17 provide.”). 18 THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is 19 DISMISSED without prejudice as moot. 20 Dated: 11/03/25 __________ ______________________ 21

HERNÁN D. VERA

22 United States District Judge

23

24 25 26 27 28