Daniel Abel Luzuriaga Ramirez v. Pamela Bondi

Docket 5:26-cv-00328

Filed
2026-01-26
Terminated
Not recorded
Case type
cv

Outcome

other judgment · plaintiff

FJC civil IDB DISTRICT=73 OFFICE=5 DOCKET=2600328 FILEDATE=01/26/2026 DISP=17, PROCPROG=10, JUDGMENT=1; codebook: https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/idb/codebooks/Civil%20Codebook%201988%20Forward%2010252023.pdf

Outcome source

Parties and representation

      Party and firm records are not available for this case.

      Panel

        No sourced panel votes are recorded.

        Opinions and documents

        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No.: 5:26-cv-00328 VBF (ADS) Date: February 11, 2026 Title: Daniel Abel Luzuriaga Ramirez v. Pamela Bondi, et al. Present: The Honorable Autumn D. Spaeth, United States Magistrate Judge Kristee Hopkins None Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorney(s) Present for Petitioner(s): Attorney(s) Present for Respondent(s): None Present None Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: MOOTNESS On January 26, 2026, Petitioner Daniel Abel Luzuriaga Ramirez, by and through counsel, filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus (the “Petition”) and a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (the “Motion”). (Dkt. Nos. 1, 2.) The Petition primarily seeks a writ of habeas corpus requiring Respondents to immediately release Petitioner from immigration detention. (Dkt. No. 1 at 11–12.) On February 4, 2026, the Court granted the Motion and ordered Respondents to immediately release Petitioner on an Order of Release on Recognizance. (Dkt. No. 9.) “A case becomes moot when interim relief or events have deprived the court of the ability to redress the party’s injuries.” United States v. Alder Creek Water Co., 823 F.2d 343, 345 (9th Cir. 1987); see also NASD Disp. Resol., Inc. v. Jud. Council, 488 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding appeal to be moot when the plaintiffs had already been granted the relief they sought). Courts have an obligation to consider mootness sua sponte and should deny requested relief where it is superfluous. In re Burrell, 415 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2005). The “basic question in determining mootness is whether there is a present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted.” Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. Gordon, 849 F.2d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 1988). Here, Respondents have been ordered to release Petitioner from detention immediately. The Court orders Petitioner to show cause in writing why the Petition UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No.: 5:26-cv-00328 VBF (ADS) Date: February 11, 2026 Title: Daniel Abel Luzuriaga Ramirez v. Pamela Bondi, et al. should not be dismissed as moot by no later than March 13, 2026. Petitioner must substantively specify what claims, if any, remain pending, the relief sought, and the factual and legal basis for each claim. Respondents must substantively respond to the claims Petitioner contends remain by no later than March 27, 2026. Petitioner may file a reply by no later than April 1, 2026. IT IS SO ORDERED. Initials of Clerk kh

        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.