Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose Cardoza Carabantes, who is representing himself, is described in the order as an immigration detainee pursuing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Eastern District of California. The caption names the warden of the California City Correctional Center and others as respondents. The order does not describe the claims in the petition, the relief he seeks, or the status of any government response, so the underlying merits are not addressed in this document.
Before taking any other step, the court checked two public government databases using the petitioner's A-number. The order states that the Executive Office for Immigration Review's Automated Case Information System reflects that an immigration judge granted voluntary departure on July 28, 2026. It also states that a search of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Online Detainee Locator System returned zero results. Both searches are described as last visited on October 30, 2026. The order does not say that the petitioner left the United States, was removed, or was released; it says only that he may not be in ICE custody.
The Court’s Holding
This is a short interim order, not a ruling on the petition. The magistrate judge observed that it appears the petitioner may not be in ICE custody, which could moot the pending habeas petition. The court cited Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2007), where the Ninth Circuit found a petition challenging the length of immigration detention moot because there was no extant controversy for the district court to act upon after the petitioner was deported, curing his complaints about the length of his detention. The order uses the language of possibility ("may not," "could moot") and makes no finding of mootness.
The operative directive is that, 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 grants no other relief. It does not dismiss, deny, or grant the petition, does not address any claim on the merits, and does not state consequences for noncompliance. Whether the case is moot, and what happens to the petition, remain open pending respondents' report.
Key Takeaways
- The order is a procedural request for information and not a dismissal; the petition remains pending and no mootness finding has been made.
- The court relied on two public database searches that it treated as suggestive only, so respondents' filing is expected to supply the authoritative custody facts.
- A grant of voluntary departure on July 28, 2026 does not by itself show that the petitioner left the country or was released, and the order does not claim that it does.
- Abdala is cited for the principle that a petition challenging the length of immigration detention can become moot when the detained person is no longer held, as when he has been deported.
- Respondents have five days from service to report current custody status and attach supporting documentation.
Why It Matters
The order shows a district court policing its own jurisdiction in an immigration habeas case. Because Article III requires a live controversy, a change in custody can end a court's ability to grant relief, and the court chose to verify custody before spending further resources on a petition that may no longer present a live dispute. Using public tools and then directing the government to confirm is an efficient way to do so.
The order has limited precedential effect. It is a magistrate judge's procedural order in a single case, is not reported, and decides no legal question. Its value is as an example of how courts handle an apparent change in custody and of the Ninth Circuit authority they invoke. Readers should watch for respondents' response and any later order addressing mootness, which would be the decision that actually resolves the petition's fate. Whether the petitioner remains detained elsewhere is not established by this order.