Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Cesar Da Silva Sidinei, a native and citizen of Brazil proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Eastern District of California on August 3, 2026. He filed with it a motion for a temporary restraining order and a motion for appointment of counsel. Respondents opposed the restraining order motion, and the district judge denied it and referred the matter to the magistrate judge.
On August 17, 2026, the court ordered Petitioner to file an amended petition within 21 days and reminded him of his obligation to keep the court informed of his current address. He filed no amended petition, and his copy of the order was returned as undeliverable. The court noted that under Local Rule 182(f), service at a party's record address is fully effective. It also observed that he never filed an amended petition addressing respondents' claim that he is subject to a removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6).
On September 11, 2026, the court noted that online immigration records indicated Petitioner was no longer in ICE custody and ordered respondents to file a status report. On September 15, 2026, respondents reported that Petitioner was removed from the United States on August 11, 2026. On September 24, 2026, the court ordered Petitioner to show cause within fourteen days why the action should not be dismissed as moot. He did not respond.
The Court’s Holding
In findings and recommendations dated October 12, 2026, the magistrate judge recommends that the petition be dismissed as moot and that the Clerk be directed to enter judgment and close the case. This is a recommendation to the assigned district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), not a final judgment. No dismissal takes effect unless the district judge adopts it.
The court reasoned that Article III limits federal jurisdiction to actual, ongoing cases or controversies. Throughout the litigation, a petitioner must have an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision, citing Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp. and Spencer v. Kemna. Respondents' status report showed Petitioner was no longer in immigration custody as of August 11, 2026. Because he is no longer in ICE custody, the court found the petition moot.
The court relied on Abdala v. I.N.S., which held that habeas claims challenging only the length of detention, as distinguished from the lawfulness of the deportation order, were moot upon removal. It also cited two Western District of Washington decisions treating release-from-custody claims as moot after departure. The findings do not address the validity of any removal order. Parties have fourteen days after service to file objections, and failure to do so may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
Key Takeaways
- A recommendation of dismissal as moot is not a final judgment; the district judge must act on the findings after the fourteen-day objection period.
- Under Abdala, a habeas petition that challenges only the length or lawfulness of detention, rather than the removal order, generally becomes moot once the petitioner is removed.
- The court verified custody status through online immigration records and a respondents' status report, and Petitioner's silence in response to the show-cause order left the mootness showing unrebutted.
- Pro se petitioners bear the duty to keep the court informed of their address, since service at the record address is fully effective under Local Rule 182(f).
Why It Matters
The findings apply settled Ninth Circuit mootness reasoning to a removed petitioner. They show that when the government documents removal, a detention-only habeas petition can end without any ruling on whether the detention was lawful. Because the recommended dismissal rests on Article III mootness, the findings say nothing about the merits of the detention claim.
The findings are unpublished and come from a magistrate judge, so they carry no precedential weight and are useful mainly as an example of routine practice. What remains open is the district judge's decision on the recommendation. The court also did not decide whether any challenge to the removal order itself could proceed, since Petitioner never filed an amended petition addressing the government's removal-order claim.