Jesus Palafox-Lugo v. JOSEPH LOMBARDO, Sheriff, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESUS PALAFOX-LUGO,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH LOMBARDO, Sheriff, Las Vegas
Metropolitan Police Department, in his
official capacity,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 18-16783
D.C. No.
2:18-cv-01294-GMN-VCF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Former Nevada state pre-trial detainee Jesus Palafox-Lugo appeals from the
district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition
challenging his detention in a Nevada state facility without release on court-
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-16783
ordered bail. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
During the pendency of this appeal, Palafox-Lugo was released from
custody and deported from the United States. Because he has already obtained the
relief he seeks, his claim is moot. See Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th
Cir. 2007) (habeas petition moot where petitioner’s release and deportation
“cur[ed] his complaints” about the length of his detention). Though Palafox-Lugo
argues that his inadmissibility to the United States is a collateral consequence
sufficient to meet the case-or-controversy requirement, any future inadmissibility
determination will be a result of his guilty plea in the Nevada state court, which he
does not challenge, not the challenged detention. See Wilson v. Terhune, 319 F.3d
477, 482 (9th Cir. 2003) (alleged collateral consequence insufficient to create live
controversy where it does not result from challenged action). Moreover, under the
circumstances of this case, there is no reasonable expectation that Palafox-Lugo
will be unlawfully detained by appellee in the future. See United States v.
Brandau, 578 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Spencer v. Kemna, 523
U.S. 1, 15 (1998) (case-or-controversy requirement not met by general speculation
that petitioner will be prosecuted in the future). Accordingly, we must dismiss.
See Mamigonian v. Biggs, 710 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Federal courts do

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-16783
not have constitutional authority to decide moot cases.”).
Appellee’s unopposed motions to supplement the record and to file a
supplemental brief are granted. Appellee’s alternate request to strike portions of
appellant’s reply brief is denied as moot. Appellee’s request for judicial notice is
granted.
Appellant’s unopposed motion to supplement the record, and his requests for
judicial notice, are granted.
DISMISSED.

-- 3 of 3 --