Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Rene Bustamante Bojorquez, described in the order as an immigration detainee proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Eastern District of California against the Warden of the California City Detention Facility and other respondents. The order does not describe the specific claims in the petition, and it does not summarize any briefing, return, or earlier ruling. On November 2, 2026, Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone issued a short, two-page order addressed solely to whether the petition still presents a live dispute.
In preparing the order, the court consulted two public government databases using the petitioner's alien registration number. The Executive Office for Immigration Review's Automated Case Information System reflected that an immigration judge ordered removal on July 27, 2026. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement Online Detainee Locator System returned zero results for the same number. The court noted that both searches were last visited on October 30, 2026. From those two results, the court concluded only that it appears the petitioner may not be in ICE custody. It did not find that he has been removed, released, or transferred, and it did not say where he is.
The Court’s Holding
The order makes no ruling on the merits and does not dismiss the petition. The court's only conclusion is a preliminary one: if the petitioner is no longer in ICE custody, that fact could moot the pending habeas petition. For that point the court cited Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2007), in which the Ninth Circuit treated a habeas petition challenging the length of immigration detention as moot because there was no extant controversy for the district court to act upon after the petitioner was deported, which cured his complaints about the length of his detention.
The operative directive is an order, not a finding. Within five days of service of the order, respondents must inform the court of the petitioner's current custody status and file any supporting documentation. The order does not specify what form the response must take, does not set a briefing schedule on mootness, does not threaten dismissal if respondents fail to respond, and does not address any other pending matter. Whether the petition will be dismissed as moot, proceed on the merits, or be handled in some other way is left for later orders after the court receives respondents' information.
Key Takeaways
- The court relied on two public database searches, one showing a removal order dated July 27, 2026 and one returning no detainee-locator result, and treated them only as a sign that the petitioner may not be in ICE custody.
- The order is a directive to respondents, who must report the petitioner's current custody status and file supporting documentation within five days of service; it is not a ruling that the petition is moot.
- The court's mootness concern rests on Abdala v. I.N.S., which found a challenge to the length of immigration detention moot after the petitioner was deported.
- The petition has not been dismissed, and nothing in the order resolves the merits, addresses relief, or says what happens if the custody information shows continued detention.
- The court did not treat the database results as conclusive and instead asked respondents for documented confirmation of the petitioner's custody status.
Why It Matters
The order shows a federal habeas court checking its own jurisdiction early. A habeas petition challenging immigration detention depends on an ongoing controversy, and the court was prompted by public records suggesting that circumstances may have changed since filing. By requiring a short, documented status report before any further proceedings, the court can determine whether the petition still presents a live dispute.
Its weight is limited. It is a brief case-management order by a magistrate judge, issued in a single case, and is not a published opinion or a precedent. It applies existing Ninth Circuit authority without extending it, and it does not decide how mootness should be analyzed when a removal order exists but custody status is uncertain, or whether any exception to mootness might apply. Practitioners representing immigration detainees may take from it that a transfer, release, or removal can prompt the court to demand prompt updates, and that detainees and counsel should be prepared to confirm custody status. What remains open is the petitioner's actual custody status and whether the petition survives.