Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Hualin Peng, a federal immigration detainee held at the California City Correctional Center, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 for findings and recommendations. On September 21, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties with notice that any objections were due within fourteen days.
Neither party filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations within the prescribed period. The district court noted its standard of review: it presumes the Magistrate Judge's findings of fact are correct under Ninth Circuit precedent, while conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Upon review of the file, the district court determined that the findings and recommendations were supported by the record and the Magistrate Judge's analysis.
The companion findings and recommendations reveal the underlying procedural history. Shortly after Petitioner filed a counseled merits brief, Respondent filed a notice of changed circumstances indicating that Immigration and Customs Enforcement had obtained a travel document for Petitioner to be removed to China. The Magistrate Judge granted Respondent's request to lift the no-transfer order and directed the parties to file a status report addressing whether Petitioner had been removed. On September 15, 2026, Respondent filed a status report and supporting documentation reflecting that Petitioner was removed to China on September 10, 2026, via a commercial flight out of Los Angeles International Airport.
The Court’s Holding
The district court adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations (ECF No. 13) in full. Consequently, the court dismissed Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) as moot based on the Petitioner's removal from the United States. The court also denied Petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 2) as moot. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
The dismissal rested on the principle that a habeas corpus petition challenging detention becomes moot when the petitioner is no longer in the custody of the respondent within the court's jurisdiction. Because Peng had been removed from the United States, the court could no longer grant effective relief regarding his detention at the California City Correctional Center. The court did not reach the merits of the underlying detention challenge, disposing of the case entirely on mootness grounds.
The Magistrate Judge's recommendation relied on Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2007), which held that a habeas petition challenging only the length of detention, as distinguished from the lawfulness of the deportation order, becomes moot upon removal. The recommendation also cited Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 2004), for the proposition that federal courts have an independent duty to consider mootness sua sponte.
Key Takeaways
- A habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging immigration detention is dismissed as moot when the petitioner is removed from the United States.
- Failure to object to a Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations within 14 days results in the district court adopting those findings, presuming factual findings are correct and reviewing legal conclusions de novo.
- A motion for a temporary restraining order related to detention is denied as moot once the petitioner has been removed from the country.
- The district court closed the case entirely without reaching the merits of the detention challenge.
- Federal courts have an independent duty to consider mootness sua sponte, even when neither party raises the issue.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the procedural posture of immigration habeas cases in the Eastern District of California, where removal from the United States routinely moots pending detention challenges. The court's reliance on the magistrate judge's unopposed findings and recommendations underscores the importance of timely objections to preserve issues for de novo review. The decision reflects the well-established principle that federal courts lack jurisdiction to grant habeas relief when the petitioner is no longer in the respondent's custody within the territorial jurisdiction.
The case also demonstrates the practical consequences of removal during pending habeas litigation. Once ICE obtained a travel document and removed the petitioner to China, the court could no longer provide meaningful relief regarding detention conditions or duration. The order confirms that a habeas petition challenging only the length of detention—not the underlying deportation order—becomes moot upon removal, consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent in Abdala v. I.N.S.