Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-00790/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-00790-0/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 

Salwinder Singh, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Secretary of the Department of 

Homeland Security, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-16-0790-PHX-DJH (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO THE HONORABLE DIANE J. HUMETEWA, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 Salwinder Singh filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2241 arguing that he is eligible for a bond hearing and asking for a second 

credible fear hearing. (Doc. 4) Respondents have informed the Court that Singh had a 

bond hearing and has been released from custody. (Doc. 12-1) Respondents further 

argue that this Court does not have jurisdiction to order a second credible fear hearing. 

(Doc. 9 a 4-10) The Court agrees. Thus, Singh has received all of the relief that this 

Court could have ordered. 

 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Salwinder Singh’s Amended 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed as moot.

 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 fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 

Case 2:16-cv-00790-DJH Document 13 Filed 10/13/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, 

the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure 

timely to 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 timely to 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 or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 

72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 Dated this 13th day of October, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-00790-DJH Document 13 Filed 10/13/16 Page 2 of 2