Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00065/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00065-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
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

 THY MAO,

Petitioner, 

vs.

KATRINA KANE, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-065-PHX-FJM (CRP)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

On January 11, 2008, Thy Mao (“Petitioner”) filed a pro se Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus (“Habeas Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc 1). At the

time, Petitioner was confined at the Immigration Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona

awaiting removal to Cambodia. Petitioner argued he was detained beyond a 180-day

period without his removal significantly likely to occur in the reasonably foreseeable

future and that further detainment violated federal law as interpreted by the Supreme

Court. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). On February 7, 2008, Petitioner was

released from confinement on an Order of Supervision. (Doc 8, Exhibit 1). After

Petitioner’s release, Respondent filed a Notice of Filing and Suggestion of Mootness

arguing the Habeas Petition is now moot. (Doc 8).

Case 2:08-cv-00065-FJM Document 10 Filed 05/01/08 Page 1 of 3
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-

Procedural History

On June 20, 2007, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed to

Cambodia. (Doc 8, Exhibit 1). After being held for over six months, on January 11,

2008, Petitioner filed the Habeas Petition pending before this Court. (Doc 1).

Petitioner sought relief from his continued detention arguing there was no prospect

that his removal to Cambodia would be effected in the reasonably foreseeable future.

(Doc 1). On February 7, 2008, Petitioner was released on an Order of Supervision.

(Doc 8, Exhibit 1). In a Notice of Filing and Suggestion of Mootness filed April 14,

2008, Respondent argues the Habeas Petition is now moot because Petitioner has

received the relief sought in the Habeas Petition. (Doc 8). Petitioner has not filed a

Response to the Notice of Filing and Suggestion of Mootness and the time for filing

such a response has expired.

Analysis

Article III of the United States Constitution empowers federal courts to

adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies. Deakins v. Monaghan, 484

U.S. 193, 199 (1988). It is insufficient that the case-or-controversy requirement is

satisfied when the suit is filed, the requirement “subsists through all stages of federal

judicial proceedings ... The parties must continue to have a personal stake in the

outcome of the lawsuit.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-478

(1990) (internal quotations omitted.) Furthermore, if it appears that the Court is

without the power to grant the relief requested by a habeas petitioner, then that case

is moot. Picrin-Person v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 775-776 (9th Cir.1991). 

In the case before this Court, Petitioner challenges only the legitimacy of his

continued detention and seeks, as his sole request, relief from it in the form of

supervised release. As Respondent points out, Petitioner is no longer in custody; he

was released on an Order of Supervision on February 7, 2008. Petitioner, therefore,

no longer has a personal stake in the outcome of this lawsuit. Additionally, the relief

Case 2:08-cv-00065-FJM Document 10 Filed 05/01/08 Page 2 of 3
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 -3-

Petitioner requested, his release from continued and potentially indefinite detention,

can no longer be granted by the Court. For these reasons, this case is moot. 

Recommendation

After careful consideration of the Complaint and all papers filed in this action,

the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court dismiss this Habeas Petition

as moot. When Petitioner was released from detention it rendered his Habeas Petition

moot.

Pursuant to Title 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: cv 08-

065-PHX-FJM.

DATED this 1st day of May, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00065-FJM Document 10 Filed 05/01/08 Page 3 of 3