Tsymbaliuk v. Beckhelm

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — 11 PETRO LIONIDOVICH TSYMBALIUK, Case No.: 22-CV-1270 JLS (JLB) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 13 v. PETITIONER’S HABEAS PETITION 14 KELLEY BECKHELM, (ECF No. 1) 15 Defendant. — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — 19 Presently before the Court is Petitioner Petro Lionidovich Tsymbaliuk’s Petition for 20 Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Pet.,” ECF No. 1). Petitioner’s sole 21 request for relief was to be released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) 22 custody. See Pet. at 7. On September 26, 2022, Petitioner posted bond and was released 23 from ICE custody under an Order of Supervision. See generally Notice of Release (ECF 24 No. 7). In light of Petitioner’s release, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause as to 25 why the Petition should not be dismissed as moot. See ECF No. 8; Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 26 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2007) (“For a habeas petition to continue to present a live 27 controversy after the petitioner’s release . . . , there must be some remaining ‘collateral 28 consequence’ that may be redressed by success on the petition.”); Ying Jiao Ye v. 1 || Nordheim, No. 218CV10072JVSKES, 2019 WL 979245 , at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2019) 2 || (“[H]abeas petitions that raise claims that are fully resolved by release from custody are 3 rendered moot upon the petitioner’s release.”). Petitioner’s deadline to respond to the order 4 || was November 21, 2022. That deadline has since passed, and the Court has yet to receive 5 || Petitioner’s response. Moreover, Petitioner’s mail is now being returned as undeliverable, 6 || presumably because Plaintiff has failed to keep the Court and opposing parties advised as 7 his current address in accordance with Local Rule 83.11(b). Finally, there is no 8 |/indication that Plaintiff has taken any action in this matter since filing the Petition on 9 || August 26, 2022, more than three months ago. 10 Accordingly, Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 writ of habeas corpus petition is hereby 11 || DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT. See Riley v. I.N.S., 310 F.3d 1253 , 1257 12 (10th Cir. 2002) (“Appellant’s release from detention moots his challenge to the legality of 13 ||his extended detention.”); Sayyah v. Farquharson, 382 F.3d 20, 22 (Ist Cir. 2004) 14 ||(‘[Petitioner] also claimed indefinite detention, but this claim was mooted by his 15 subsequent release.”’); Limpin v. Figueroa, 738 F. App’x 504 (9th Cir. 2018) (“Because 16 [petitioner’s] petition did not assert any collateral consequences from his detention, and 17 || requested only release from detention, there is no longer any relief this court can grant him. 18 || Therefore, his appeal is dismissed as moot.”). If Petitioner wishes to file an amended 19 || petition, he must do so within 30 days of the date of this order. Failure to (1) file an 20 || amended petition and (2) notify the Court and Defendants of his current mailing address 21 or before January 2, 2023 will result in the dismissal of this case. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ||Dated: December 1, 2022 peach Jt, i waited 24 on. Janis L. Sammartino 5 United States District Judge — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —