Satish Shetty v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SATISH SHETTY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General;
et al.,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 11-56549
D.C. No. 8:10-cv-01559-CAS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Satish Shetty, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the
district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition, and
denying his motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C.
FILED
FEB 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-56549 2
§§ 1291 and 2253(a). We review de novo a district court’s decision to dismiss a 28
U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition, Puri v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 1038, 1040 (9th Cir.
2006), and review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a motion for
reconsideration, Benson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 1207, 1211 (9th
Cir. 2012). We affirm the district court’s orders.
The district court correctly dismissed Shetty’s petition for habeas relief as
moot after he was released from custody and his removal proceedings were
terminated, as these were the primary forms of relief he sought in his habeas
petition. See Munoz v. Rowland, 104 F.3d 1096, 1097-98 (9th Cir. 1997) (petition
for habeas deemed moot when it no longer involves a live case or controversy and
the court cannot provide the primary relief sought in the petition).
The district court properly denied Shetty’s request to adjust his status
pursuant to an immigration judge’s grant of such relief in the terminated removal
proceedings, where his adjustment application was pending before the United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services, and he had not yet exhausted his
administrative remedies. See McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144-45 (1992)
(“the general rule [is] that parties exhaust prescribed administrative remedies
before seeking relief from the federal courts”).

-- 2 of 3 --

11-56549 3
Petitioner’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --