Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00633/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00633-2/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

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KONSTANTIN CHEVYREV,

Petitioner,

v.

ALBERTO R. GONZALES,

Attorney General, et.al.,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 07-0633 OWW SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION AS MOOT

BE GRANTED

[Doc. 11]

Petitioner is detained by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“BICE”)

and is proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

 Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on April 25, 2007,

challenging his detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2) as indefinite and punitive in nature. 

On June 1, 2007, the Court issued an order to show cause why the petition should not be

granted. On July 18, 2007, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot. Petitioner

did not file a response.

Respondent has submitted that Petitioner was released from custody on an order of

supervision on July 17, 2007. (Attachment A, DACS, Custody Summary Inquiry, to Motion.) 

Because Petitioner has been released on an order of supervision, and is no longer in

detention, his habeas petition challenging the length of his confinement is moot, and the petition

should be dismissed. Cf. Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773 (9 Cir. 1991) (habeas petition th

dismissed as moot because INS Director had released (paroled) alien petitioner).

Case 1:07-cv-00633-OWW -SMS Document 13 Filed 08/22/07 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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s motion to dismiss the

instant petition as MOOT be GRANTED.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of

the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with

the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 21, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00633-OWW -SMS Document 13 Filed 08/22/07 Page 2 of 2