Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03789/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03789-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

FARSHAD FARROKH NEJAD, 

Petitioner,

vs.

PHILIP CRAWFORD, Director ICE Field

Office, 

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3789-PHX-ROS (BPV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On November 22, 2005, Petitioner Farshad Farrokh Nejad, filed a pro se Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 alleging that immigration officials were

holding him in detention pending his removal to Iran, but that his removal could not be

effected. Petitioner filed an Amended Petition on January 11, 2006. Petitioner sought his

immediate release from custody on the grounds that his indefinite detention with no prospect

that his removal would be effected in the reasonably foreseeable future was not authorized

by law. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (when there is no reasonable likelihood

that a foreign government will accept the alien's return in the reasonably foreseeable future,

the immigration laws do not permit the INS to detain the alien indefinitely; rather, the INS

has the authority to detain aliens only for a reasonable time beyond the normal 90-day

statutory removal period).

On March 29, 2006, Respondent filed a Suggestion of Mootness (Doc. 9) indicating

that Petitioner was released on March 20, 2006, under an Order of Supervision. The

Case 2:05-cv-03789-ROS Document 12 Filed 05/05/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Respondent argues the case is now moot. On April 7, 2006, this court gave Nejad until April

28, 2006, to show good cause why this case should not be dismissed as moot. The court

specifically warned Nejad that the case may be dismissed without further notice if he failed

to respond. He did not respond. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent review

of the record, enter an order DISMISSING the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as MOOT.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 (b), any party may serve and file written objections within

10 days of being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. If objections are not

timely filed, they may be deemed waived. If objections are filed, the parties should use the

following case number: CIV 05-3789-PHX-ROS.

DATED this 4th day of May, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03789-ROS Document 12 Filed 05/05/06 Page 2 of 2