1

JS-6

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARIF A. DURRANI, Case No. 5:19-cv-01889-MFW (AFM) 12 Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

13 v. AS MOOT 14 DAVID JENNINGS, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 BACKGROUND 19 On October 2, 2019, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. At the time he filed the petition, Petitioner was subject 21 to a final order of removal and was in custody of the United States Immigration and 22 Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). The petition challenges Petitioner’s continued 23 detention by ICE pending his removal. Specifically, the petition alleges that 24 Petitioner has been detained without removal for longer than six months and is 25 entitled to be released under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). (ECF No. 1 at 26 5-7.) 27 On November 13, 2019, Respondents filed a Notice of Removal including 28 1 documentation showing that on November 7, 2019, Petitioner was removed from the 2 United States. As a result, Respondents urge that the petition should be dismissed as 3 moot. (ECF No. 7.) On November 25, 2019, Petitioner filed a response. Petitioner 4 concedes that he has been removed and is no longer in ICE custody. Nevertheless, he 5 attempts to challenge the validity of the underlying removal order by, among other 6 things, relitigating the determination that he is not a United States citizen. (ECF No. 7 14.) 8 DISCUSSION 9 Federal court jurisdiction is limited to adjudication of actual cases and live 10 controversies. Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990); North 11 Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) (per curiam). A petition for a writ of 12 habeas corpus becomes moot when a prisoner who requests release from custody is 13 released before the court has addressed the merits of the petition. See Lane v. 14 Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 631 (1982); Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). 15 The petition requests an order releasing Petitioner from ICE custody. (ECF 16 No. 1 at 6-7.) Petitioner, however, already has been released from ICE custody. As a 17 result, there is no additional relief that this Court could grant him. This is true 18 notwithstanding Petitioner’s challenge tothe underlying removal order, including his 19 allegations that he is actually a United States citizen. (See ECF No. 14.) This Court 20 lacks jurisdiction to review the final order of removal issued in Petitioner’s case; 21 instead, such challenges must be presented to the Court of Appeals. See 8 U.S.C. § 22 1252(a)(5); Alvarez–Barajas v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005) (the 23 circuit courts are “the ‘sole’ judicial body able to review challenges to final orders of 24 deportation, exclusion, or removal”); Iasu v. Chertoff, 426 F. Supp. 2d 1124, 1127 25 (S.D. Cal. 2006) (petitioner, who was subject to final order of removal, was required 26 to raise his claim that he was a United States citizen in the court of appeals; district 27 court lacked jurisdiction to consider it), aff’d, 511 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2007). Petitioner 28 himself notes that he has filed a petition for review challenging the removal order, 1 || and that petition is currently pending in the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. | at 4; see 2 || Durrani v. Barr, Ninth Circuit Case No. 18-72662.) 3 The only issue raised in the habeas petition here — and the only one properly 4 || before this Court — is whether Petitioner’s continued detention violates the 5 || Constitution. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 689 (in light of the Constitution’s demands, 6 || an alien’s post-removal-period detention is limited to “a period reasonably necessary 7 | to bring about that alien’s removal from the United States”). As a result of 8 || Petitioner’s removal, the question of the constitutional validity of his continued 9 || detention no longer presents a live controversy. See Abdala v. ILN.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 10 | 1064 (9th Cir. 2007) (‘a petitioner’s release from detention under an order of 11 || supervision “‘moot[s] his challenge to the legality of his extended detention’”); 12 || Martinez-Reyes v. Burns, 2011 WL 1375293, *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2011) (“since 13 || petitioner’s removal from the United States has released him from ICE custody, he 14 || has received the only relief this Court might provide him, and the pending Petition 1s 15 || moot’), report and recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 1375163 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 16 || 2011). 17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed without prejudice as moot, 18 || and the case is closed. 19 It is so ordered. 20 21 || DATED: December 2, 2019 i 22 Hoy 23 MICHAEL W. FITZGE 5A UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25 26 27 28