1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MANJINDER SINGH, Case No. 5:19-cv-02417-GW-MAA

12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

14 ACTING DIRECTOR OF DHS-ICE, JUDGE et al., 15 16 Respondents. 17

18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of 19 Habeas Corpus by Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 20 (“Petition”), the other records on file herein, and the Report and Recommendation 21 of the United States Magistrate Judge. The time for filing objections has expired, 22 and no objections have been filed. However, new developments have occurred 23 subsequent to the filing of the Report and Recommendation that warrant brief 24 discussion. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 BACKGROUND 2 Petitioner, who was detained at Adelanto Detention Facility (“Adelanto”) 3 during his removal proceedings, raises three claims challenging his immigration 4 detention and conditions of confinement. (Pet., ECF No. 1, at 3–4.) On February 5 6, 2020, Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition for lack of jurisdiction 6 and failure to state a claim. (Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 8.) Petitioner’s Opposition 7 to the Motion to Dismiss was due thirty days after the Motion was filed. (See Or. 8 Requiring Response, ECF No. 5, at 2–3.) 9 On March 30, 2020, after Petitioner failed to file an Opposition to the Motion 10 to Dismiss, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) directing Petitioner 11 to show cause, by no later than May 29, 2020, why the Petition should not be 12 dismissed, and warning Petitioner that his failure to respond could be deemed as 13 consent to granting the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Local Rule 7-12. (OSC, ECF 14 No. 10.) Petitioner did not file a response to the OSC. 15 In the Report and Recommendation, which was issued on July 9, 2020, the 16 Magistrate Judge recommended granting Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss and 17 dismissing the Petition without prejudice for failure to prosecute and to comply 18 with a court order. (Rep. & Recommendation, ECF No. 13.) Petitioner did not file 19 any objections to the Report and Recommendation. 20 On June 29, 2020 and again on September 9, 2020, Petitioner filed requests 21 to be released on bail as a member of the class of Adelanto detainees represented in 22 Hernandez-Roman v. Wolf, No. 5:20-cv-00768-TJH (“Hernandez-Roman”) (C.D. 23 Cal. filed Apr. 13, 2020). (ECF Nos. 11, 14.) On October 19, 2020, the Court 24 issued an Order striking these documents and directing Petitioner to submit the bail 25 requests to Adelanto authorities pursuant to the procedure set forth in the 26 Hernandez-Roman class action. (Oct. 19, 2020 Or., ECF No. 15.) 27 /// 28 1 On November 5, 2020 and again on November 23, 2020, the Court’s October 2 19, 2020 Order striking Petitioner’s bail requests was returned as undeliverable. 3 (ECF Nos. 16, 17.) 4 On December 1, 2020, the Court issued an Order directing Respondents to 5 file a report regarding Petitioner’s current detention status, informing the Court of 6 whether Petitioner has been released from immigration detention or removed from 7 the United States. (Dec. 1, 2020 Or., ECF No. 18.) 8 On December 9, 2020, Respondents filed a response stating that Petitioner 9 was released from Adelanto on October 19, 2020 pursuant to an order of supervised 10 release and attaching a copy of Petitioner’s order of supervised release. (Dec. 9, 11 2020 Response, ECF No. 19.) Respondents argue that Petitioner’s conditional 12 release from immigration detention renders the Petition moot. (Id. at 2–3.) 13 14 DISCUSSION 15 Federal courts are barred from hearing matters in the absence of a live case or 16 controversy. See U.S. Const. art. III, § 2; Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). 17 To meet the case or controversy requirement of Article III, the parties must 18 continue to have a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit throughout the 19 proceedings. Wilson v. Terhune, 319 F.3d 477, 479 (9th Cir. 2003). “If an event 20 occurs that prevents the court from granting effective relief, the claim is moot and 21 must be dismissed.” Am. Rivers v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 126 F.3d 1118, 22 1123 (9th Cir. 1997). 23 Respondents argue that Petitioner’s supervised release renders the Petition 24 moot. (Dec. 9, 2020 Response at 2–3.) In support of this argument, Respondents 25 cite a 1991 case in which the Immigration and Naturalization Service filed a sworn 26 declaration stating that the petitioner would not be re-detained “absent [the 27 petitioner’s] reinvolvement with the criminal justice system, a change in the Cuban 28 1 || government enabling him to return to Cuba, or the willingness of a third country to 2 || accept him... .” Pincon-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 || However, the Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit more recently have held that the 4 || Department of Homeland Security’s conditional release of a petitioner who 1s 5 || subject to re-detention at the discretion of federal authorities does not moot a 6 || habeas challenge to immigration detention. See Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 7 || 376 n.3 (2005); Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081, 1084 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011); 8 || Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 2010). 9 In light of this case law, the Court finds that Petitioner’s conditional release 10 || has not rendered the Petition moot. However, the Court accepts the Magistrate 11 || Judge’s Report and Recommendation to grant Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss 12 || based on Petitioner’s failure to file an Opposition and to dismiss the Petition 13 || without prejudice for failure to prosecute and to comply with a court order. 14 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation 15 || of the Magistrate Judge is accepted; and (2) Judgment shall be entered denying the 16 || Petition and dismissing this action without prejudice. 17 DATED: February 19, 2021 Hires Ww, By

20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28