Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Zahara Muhammed Nakiyaga, represented by counsel, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on September 15, 2026, alleging that she was in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Adelanto, California, and that she was being held in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States. She also filed an Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order, which the court denied without prejudice on September 17, 2026.
Respondents filed an Answer on September 22, 2026, supported by the declaration of a DHS Deportation Officer. Petitioner filed her Traverse on September 25, 2026. That same day, Respondents filed a Notice of Intended Removal, informing the court that Petitioner was scheduled for transfer outside the Central District on October 3, 2026, to effectuate her removal from the United States.
On October 2, 2026, the court ordered Respondents to file, no later than October 6, 2026, either confirmation that Petitioner had been removed to Uganda as anticipated or a brief of no more than three pages addressing whether her detention could be continued past the end of the removal period under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), together with a copy of the warrant of removal. On October 6, 2026, Respondents instead filed a status report stating that travel plans had been finalized for removal to Uganda via commercial air on October 8, 2026. On October 13, 2026, Respondents filed a Notice of Removal and Suggestion of Mootness, confirming that Petitioner was removed from the United States as scheduled on October 8, 2026, and requesting that the petition be dismissed as moot.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed the petition without prejudice as moot. It explained that Article III limits federal courts to the adjudication of actual, ongoing controversies, that mootness is jurisdictional, and that when an event occurs during litigation making it impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief, the case must be dismissed as moot. Because Petitioner's removal occurred while the case was pending, no effectual relief remained available.
For a habeas petition to continue presenting a live controversy after the petitioner's release or deportation, there must be some remaining collateral consequence that may be redressed by success on the petition. Here, the petition explicitly challenged only the legality of Petitioner's present physical custody and alleged no collateral consequences that could be addressed now that she is no longer in custody.
Because Petitioner had been removed from the United States, the court found there was no further relief it could provide. It cited recent decisions from the Central and Eastern Districts of California dismissing immigration habeas petitions as moot after removal, including one Eastern District matter that began as a magistrate judge's report and recommendation later adopted by the district judge, and concluded that the injury Petitioner sought to remedy could not be redressed by a favorable decision.
Key Takeaways
- A habeas corpus petition challenging only the legality of present physical custody becomes moot once the petitioner is removed from the United States and no longer in custody.
- For a habeas petition to survive a petitioner's release or deportation, the petitioner must allege some remaining collateral consequence that could be redressed by success on the petition.
- Mootness is a jurisdictional bar under Article III, and federal courts must dismiss cases where an intervening event makes it impossible to grant any effectual relief.
- The court dismissed the petition without prejudice as moot rather than reaching the merits of the custody challenge.
- The decision follows a line of recent California federal court decisions dismissing immigration habeas petitions as moot after the petitioner's removal from the United States.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the jurisdictional limits on habeas corpus relief in the immigration context. When a petition challenges only the fact of present physical custody and the petitioner is subsequently removed from the United States, the case becomes moot because the court can no longer order the petitioner's release. The ruling underscores the importance of pleading collateral consequences if a habeas petitioner wishes to maintain a live controversy after release or removal.
The decision also demonstrates the practical challenges facing immigration detainees who seek habeas relief. The rapid timeline from filing to removal here—less than one month—rendered the petition moot before the court could address the merits. The dismissal without prejudice preserves the petitioner's ability to pursue other forms of relief, but the ruling confirms that habeas corpus is no longer available once the petitioner is outside the court's jurisdiction and no collateral consequences have been alleged.