Yan v. Unknown Party et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Huan Yuan Yan,
Petitioner,
v.
Unknown Party, et al.,
Respondent.
No. CV-26-01749-PHX-SHD (DMF)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO THE HONORABLE SHARAD H. DESAI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE:
This matter is on referral to the undersigned for further proceedings and a report and
recommendation pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure
(Doc. 3 at 4).1
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner Huan Yuan Yan (“Petitioner” and/or “Yan”) filed a Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”) (Doc. 1). At the time Petitioner
filed the Petition, Petitioner was confined in the San Luis Regional Detention Center (Id.
at 1). In the Petition, Petitioner challenges his immigration detention (Id.). The Court
recounted in its March 17, 2026, Order:
1 Citation to the record as “Doc.” indicates documents as displayed in the official Court
electronic document filing system maintained by the District of Arizona under Case No.
CV-26-01749-PHX-SHD (DMF).
Case 2:26-cv-01749-SHD Document 11 Filed 04/07/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Petitioner asserts that his prolonged detention without a bond hearing
violates his Fifth Amendment due process rights. He seeks release from
custody, or in the alternative, a bond hearing.
The Court will dismiss Respondent Current or Acting Field Office Director
of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Calexico Field
Office as an improper Respondent. See Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188,
1197 (9th Cir. 2024). The Court will direct the Clerk of Court to substitute
David Rivas for Respondent Warden of the San Luis Regional Detention
Facility, Todd Lyons for Respondent Current or Acting Director of the
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Kristi Noem for
Respondent Current or Acting Secretary of the United States Department of
Homeland Security, and Pamela Bondi for Respondent Current or Acting
United States Attorney General.
(Doc. 3 at 2). The Court directed:
Respondents must respond to the Petition. Any response must be supported
by documentary evidence including, if applicable, affidavits by individuals
with personal knowledge of the factual statements made therein and signed
under penalty of perjury.
(Id.). The Court also set a timeframe for Petitioner’s reply (Id. at 4).
On April 1, 2026, Respondents filed an answer to the Petition stating that Petitioner
was released from immigration and placed on an Order of Supervision on March 26, 2026
(Doc. 9 at 1). Respondents summarize:
The only claim for relief made by Petitioner in the habeas petition was to be
released from ICE custody. On March 26, 2026, Petitioner was successfully
released from custody and is no longer in ICE custody. Because the habeas
petition did not seek to redress any collateral consequences arising from
Petitioner’s detention, Respondents respectfully request that the Court deny
the petition and dismiss it as moot.
(Doc. 9 at 3). Respondents did not support the answer with any documentary evidence or
affidavits by individuals with personal knowledge of the factual statements made therein
(Doc. 9).
On April 1, 2026, the Court received mail returned as undeliverable containing a
copy of the Court’s March 17, 2026, Order (Doc. 10; see Doc. 3). The return to sender
message on the envelope reflects that Petitioner is no longer in custody at the San Luis
Case 2:26-cv-01749-SHD Document 11 Filed 04/07/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Regional Detention Center (Doc. 10).
A reply is not necessary because, as discussed below, the Petition is now moot.
II. DISCUSSION
Under Article III of the United States Constitution, federal courts may adjudicate
only actual, ongoing cases or controversies. Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199
(1988). “For a habeas petition to continue to present 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.” Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir.
2007) (quoting Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)). For example, a petition that
disputes the merits of an order of removal may raise sufficient collateral consequences to
maintain a live case or controversy. Id.; see also Handa v. Clark, 401 F.3d 1129, 1132-33
(9th Cir. 2005).
Respondent is correct that this action is now moot. In his Petition, Petitioner alleges
that his constitutional due process rights were violated by his immigration detention
without a bond hearing. Respondent represents to the Court that Petitioner has been
released subject to an Order of Supervision (Doc. 9), a representation that is supported by
the mail returned as undeliverable reflecting that Petitioner is no longer in custody at the
San Luis Regional Detention Center (Doc. 10). Thus, Petitioner’s challenge to his
immigration detention without a bond hearing is now moot. Further, the Petition raises no
collateral consequence to maintain a live case or controversy. See Abdala, 488 F.3d at
1064.
III. CONCLUSION
Because Petitioner’s release subject to an Order of Supervision renders his habeas
claim moot, the Court will recommend that the Petition be denied without prejudice and
this matter be dismissed as moot.
Accordingly,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Petition (Doc. 1) be denied without prejudice
and this matter be dismissed as moot.
Case 2:26-cv-01749-SHD Document 11 Filed 04/07/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s
judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this
recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. The parties shall have fourteen days within which
to file responses to any objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and
Recommendation by the District Court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-
Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to file timely objections to any factual
determination of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to
appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. In addition, LRCiv 7.2(e)(3)
provides that “[u]nless otherwise permitted by the Court, an objection to a Report and
Recommendation issued by a Magistrate Judge shall not exceed ten (10) pages.”
Dated this 7th day of April, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-01749-SHD Document 11 Filed 04/07/26 Page 4 of 4