1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ALEKSEI GRITSENKO, Case No.: 25cv899-LL-JLB
12 Petitioner,
ORDER GRANTING
13 v. RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS HABEAS PETITIONS FOR
14 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
MOOTNESS
SECURITY,
15
Respondent. [ECF No. 10]
16
17
18
19 Before the Court is Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Aleksei and Diana Gritsenko’s
20 (collectively “Petitioners”) Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
21 § 2241 for mootness (“Motion”). ECF No. 10. Respondent attests that Petitioners were
22 released from detention on June 5, 2025. ECF No. 10-1, Declaration of Fernando
23 Valenzuela, ¶¶ 8–9; see also ECF No. 10-2.
24 The Court finds that Petitioners’ actions are now moot. When Petitioners filed their
25 habeas petitions, they sought to be released from immigration detention. Now that
26 Petitioners have been released from custody, the Court is without power to grant the relief
27 requested and the Petitions are therefore moot. Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 775
28 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted) (“If it appears that we are without power to grant the
1 || relief requested, then this case is moot.”); see also Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1,7 (1998)
2 || (noting that a petition can become moot if it no longer presents a case or controversy under
3 || Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution by reason of lacking an actual injury traceable to
4 ||a defendant that is capable of being redressed by a favorable judicial decision).
5 || Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Respondent’s Motion and DISMISSES the Petitions as
6 ||moot. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close these consolidated cases.
7 IT IS SO ORDERED.
8 || Dated: June 27, 2025 NO
9 DE
10 Honorable Linda Lopez
1 United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.