Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00923/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00923-0/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

Andrew Vladimirovich Kulikov, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Katrina Kane, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV-09-923-PHX-PGR (MHB)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE PAUL G. ROSENBLATT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Petitioner Andrew Vladimirovich Kulikov (A070-390-183) has filed a pro se Petition

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

are holding him in detention pending his removal to Russia. Petitioner argues that he is

entitled to release from custody because his detention with no prospect that his removal will

be effected in the reasonably foreseeable future is 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 an alien’s return in the reasonably foreseeable future, the INS may

not detain the alien for more than the presumptively reasonable period of six months).

On July 22, 2009, Respondent filed a notice of Suggestion of Mootness (Doc. #9)

indicating that Petitioner was released from custody and placed under an Order of

Supervision on July 17, 2009. See Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[A]

petitioner’s release from detention under an order of supervision ‘moots his challenge to the

legality of his extended detention.’”) (quoting Riley v. INS, 310 F.3d 1253, 1256-57 (10th

Cir. 2002)). Accordingly, on July 28, 2009, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why

Case 2:09-cv-00923-PGR Document 12 Filed 08/19/09 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 -

his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 should not be

dismissed as moot in light of his release from custody. (Doc. #10.) On August 10, 2009,

Petitioner filed a request to voluntarily dismiss his Petition. (Doc. #11.)

It appearing that the relief requested in Petitioner’s habeas petition has been granted,

and both parties agree that the habeas petition is now moot and should, therefore, be

dismissed, the Court will recommend that Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

be dismissed.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. #1) be DISMISSED as moot and without

prejudice.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The

parties shall have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within which to file a

response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report

and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by

the district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the

findings of fact in an order of judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72.

DATED this 18th day of August, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00923-PGR Document 12 Filed 08/19/09 Page 2 of 2