Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Papassara Suksatan, a native and citizen of Thailand proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on June 26, 2026, challenging her immigration detention at the California City Detention Center. She also moved for appointment of counsel. Respondents moved to dismiss on the ground that she had not exhausted administrative remedies by requesting a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). On September 14, 2026, respondents reported that petitioner had requested voluntary departure. On October 14, 2026, respondents filed a status report confirming that petitioner was removed on September 22, 2026, pursuant to that request. The court then ordered petitioner to show cause within fourteen days why the action should not be dismissed as moot, warning that failure to respond would result in a recommendation of dismissal. Petitioner did not respond.
The magistrate judge framed the issue under Article III's case-or-controversy requirement, which demands an actual, ongoing injury traceable to the defendant and redressable by a favorable decision. Because the petition challenged only the legality and constitutionality of petitioner's continued detention and sought her immediate release, the court found that her removal from the United States and release from ICE custody rendered the petition moot. The court cited Ninth Circuit and district court precedent holding that habeas claims challenging only the length or legality of detention become moot upon removal or voluntary departure. The court specifically relied on Abdala v. I.N.S., Rodriguez v. Bostock, and Hurtado Guillermo v. Warden/Facility Administrator, each of which applied the same mootness principle to a detainee who had left the United States.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommends that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as moot. The court also denies petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel as moot and recommends that respondents' motion to dismiss be denied as moot. The clerk is directed to enter judgment and close the case. The findings and recommendations are submitted to the assigned district judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), with a fourteen-day period for filing objections.
The recommendation is not a final disposition. The order expressly submits the findings and recommendations to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, and any party may file written objections within fourteen days after service. The court also advises that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order, citing Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Key Takeaways
- A habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging only immigration detention becomes moot when the petitioner is removed from the United States and is no longer in ICE custody.
- Voluntary departure pursuant to a petitioner's own request eliminates the live controversy necessary to sustain a detention challenge.
- The magistrate judge's recommendation is not a final order; it is submitted to the district judge, and parties have fourteen days to file objections before the district court acts.
- The court vacated both the petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel and the respondents' motion to dismiss as moot in light of the recommended dismissal.
- Failure to respond to a show-cause order regarding mootness supports a recommendation of dismissal.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the strict application of Article III mootness doctrine in immigration habeas cases: once a detainee is no longer in custody, a petition seeking release from that custody cannot proceed. The ruling aligns with Ninth Circuit precedent in Abdala v. I.N.S. and recent district court decisions holding that voluntary departure moots detention challenges. The procedural posture — a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations subject to district court review — is standard for § 2241 petitions in this district.
The order also demonstrates the practical consequence of a petitioner's failure to respond to a show-cause order. The court had cautioned that failure to respond would result in a recommendation of dismissal, and the petitioner's silence allowed the court to proceed on the record showing removal. This underscores the importance of maintaining communication with the court and responding to orders in habeas proceedings.