Jeong Seon Han v. Lynch
223 F. Supp. 3d 95
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Han, a Korean engineer, was detained in DC under a Coast Guard security agreement tied to APPS/MARPOL investigations.
- The Pacific Breeze was detained and later released after the vessel owner posted the security agreement, requiring Han to stay within DC.
- Han was transported to Virginia and held in an apartment for about nine months awaiting DOJ decision.
- Criminal charges were filed in DC, indictment followed, and then transfer to Hawaii for ongoing proceedings.
- In Hawaii, Han is subject to release conditions and movement restrictions, creating a separate detention context.
- The government moved to dismiss the habeas petition as moot, arguing lack of current DC detention and jurisdiction over Hawaii detention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Han’s pre-indictment detention is moot | Han argues ongoing detention under the DC Security Agreement. | Respondents contend detention ended with indictment and transfer. | Pre-indictment detention is moot; no live controversy. |
| Whether capable-of-repetition yet evading review applies | Han contends the practice could recur and evade review. | Government disputes likelihood of recurrence for Han. | Exception does not apply; recurrence too speculative for Han. |
| Whether the Court has jurisdiction over Han’s Hawaii detention | Han seeks habeas relief for current detention, arguing US custody. | Court lacks jurisdiction; detention in Hawaii outside DC district. | Court lacks jurisdiction over current detention; petition dismissed as to Hawaii detention. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pharmachemie B.V. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 276 F.3d 627 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (capable-of-repetition mootness standard)
- True the Vote, Inc. v. IRS, 831 F.3d 551 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (mootness live controversy and repetition considerations)
- Ralls Corp. v. Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., 758 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (recurrence of same legal wrong, capable-of-repetition analysis)
- Columbian Rope Co. v. West, 142 F.3d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (recurrence too speculative; not enough for mootness exception)
- McBryde v. Comm. to Review Circuit Council Conduct, 264 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (recurrence concerns and misconduct likelihood in mootness context)
- Padilla v. United States, 542 U.S. 426 (2004) (habeas jurisdiction and custody principles for present confinement)
- Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (significant mootness considerations in ongoing enforcement)