1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARIO ANTONIC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00110-GW-MAA 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

AS MOOT AND DISMISSING

13 v. ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 14 KEVIN MCALEENAN, Secretary of DENYING MOTIONS TO Homeland Security, et al., EXPEDITE AS MOOT 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 19 On January 15, 2020, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas 20 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Section 2241”) (“Petition”). (Pet., ECF No. 21 2.) Petitioner raises one claim for Section 2241 relief: that his continued 22 immigration detention violates due process under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 23 (2001). (Pet. 2, 6.1) 24 On March 20, 2020, Respondents filed an Answer, including a Memorandum 25 of Points and Authorities, and supporting Exhibits. (Answer, ECF No. 10; Exs., 26 ECF Nos. 10-1 to 10-3.) On April 3, 2020, Petitioner filed a “Motion to Add 27 1 Pinpoint citations in this Order refer to the page numbers appearing in the ECF- 28 generated headers of the parties’ filings. 1 Supplemental Facts,” which the Court construed as Petitioner’s Reply. (See ECF 2 Nos. 11 (Mot.), 16 (Or.).) 3 On July 30, 2020, Petitioner filed his first Motion to Expedite, requesting that 4 the Court grant the Petition and order his release from immigration custody on an 5 expedited basis because the COVID-19 pandemic had disrupted international air 6 travel and prevented Respondents from removing Petitioner to his country of 7 citizenship, Bosnia-Herzegovina. (July 30, 2020 Mot., ECF No. 24.) On August 5, 8 2020, the Court denied this motion as premature and ordered further briefing from 9 Respondents to address developments in Petitioner’s removal proceedings that 10 occurred after Respondents filed the Answer. (Aug. 5, 2020 Or., ECF No. 26.) On 11 August 20, 2020, Respondents filed a Sur-reply pursuant to the Court’s Order, 12 arguing that Petitioner was subject to mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 13 § 1231 and was slated for imminent removal. (Aug. 20, 2020 Sur-reply, ECF No. 14 27.) 15 Between September 1, 2020 and November 4, 2020, Petitioner filed five 16 additional motions to expedite. (ECF Nos. 28, 31, 33, 35, 37.) As now relevant, on 17 November 23, 2020, the Court ordered Respondents to file a status report by 18 December 21, 2020 detailing their efforts to remove Petitioner and the legal 19 authority for Petitioner’s continued detention; or alternatively, to file a Notice of 20 Removal no later than the day after Petitioner’s removal. (Nov. 23, 2020 Or., ECF 21 No. 40.) 22 On December 17, 2020, Respondents filed a Notice of Removal stating that 23 Petitioner was removed to Bosnia-Herzegovina on December 16, 2020. (Not. of 24 Removal, ECF No. 42.) 25 26 II. DISCUSSION 27 The Court has an independent obligation to consider its own subject-matter 28 jurisdiction. See Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). Federal 1 || courts are barred from hearing matters in the absence of a live case or controversy. 2 || See U.S. Const. art. I, § 2; Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). To meet the 3 || case or controversy requirement of Article III, the parties must continue to have a 4 || personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit throughout the proceedings. Wilson v. 5 || Terhune, 319 F.3d 477, 479 (9th Cir. 2003). “If an event occurs that prevents the 6 || court from granting effective relief, the claim is moot and must be dismissed.” Am. 7 || Rivers v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 126 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 1997). 8 In this case, Petitioner challenged only his continued detention in United 9 || States immigration custody. (See Pet.) Petitioner’s removal thus moots his 2241 10 || Petition. See Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that 11 |) habeas petition challenging immigration detention became moot when petitioner 12 || was deported). 13 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that the Petition is DISMISSED as moot 14 }| and this Action is DISMISSED without prejudice. In light of this dismissal, it is 15 || further ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions to Expedite are DENIED as moot. 16 17 || DATED: February 22, 2021 18 Aferg RM, Vie 19 HON.GEORGEH.WU sits 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 || Presented by: 23 24 pe}

26 || UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28