Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Kevin Paul Chango Castro, the petitioner, filed a petition for habeas corpus relief on September 11, 2026, in the Central District of California. The petition primarily seeks a writ requiring respondents to immediately release him from immigration detention. The order describes that request as the relief sought, not as relief already granted.
Respondents later filed a Notice of Intended Removal stating that Castro would be removed on or after October 10, 2026. The court cited that notice as Dkt. No. 13. The order does not state that removal actually occurred; it treats removal as the event that may make the petition moot.
On October 26, 2026, Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth issued the two-page order to show cause regarding mootness in chambers. The court identified the petition's request for immediate release and the notice of intended removal as the starting points for its inquiry, then required the parties to report what had actually happened and what relief remained at issue.
The Court’s Holding
The order grounded its inquiry in four Ninth Circuit decisions. United States v. Alder Creek Water Co., 823 F.2d 343, 345 (9th Cir. 1987), supplies the rule that intervening relief or events make a case moot when the court can no longer redress the party's injuries. The court also cited NASD Disp. Resol., Inc. v. Jud. Council, 488 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2007), describing an appeal as moot after the plaintiffs had already received the relief sought. In re Burrell, 415 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2005), supports the court's obligation to consider mootness on its own initiative and deny relief that would be superfluous. Finally, Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. Gordon, 849 F.2d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 1988), frames the question as whether a present controversy remains for which effective relief can be granted. These authorities explain the inquiry; the order does not announce a finding that Castro's petition is moot.
The operative directive is not a dismissal. The parties are ordered to file a joint status report no later than November 2, 2026, addressing whether Castro has been removed from the United States and whether the petition is moot. If they cannot file jointly, each party must file a separate status report by the same date.
The status report must substantively specify what claims, if any, remain pending, the relief sought, and the factual and legal basis for each claim. The order closes with 'IT IS SO ORDERED,' making the reporting directive an order of the court even though the mootness question itself remains open.
Key Takeaways
- The notice reported intended removal; this order required the parties to report whether removal had occurred and whether the petition remained live.
- Under the authorities cited in the order, courts must consider mootness on their own initiative and should deny relief that would be superfluous.
- The November 2, 2026 deadline applies to a joint status report, with separate reports required if the parties cannot file jointly.
- The report must do more than say 'moot' or 'not moot'; it must identify any remaining claims, the relief sought, and the factual and legal basis for each claim.
- Nothing in this order releases the petitioner, grants habeas relief, or dismisses the petition; those questions remain for later proceedings.
Why It Matters
The important distinction in this order is between contemplated removal, completed removal, and the continued availability of effective relief on any pending claim. The court asks for information about each rather than treating the removal notice as a finding that removal occurred. Its reporting directive leaves the ultimate mootness decision unresolved.
For practitioners, the practical lesson is that a status report in this posture must be substantive. A bare statement that the petitioner was removed may not answer whether any claim, form of relief, or legal basis survives; the court expressly asked for claims, relief, and supporting facts and law.