Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01902/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01902-0/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

Romeo Ramirez-Garcia, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Michael Mukasey, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1902-PHX-NVW (ECV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE NEIL V. WAKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States on June 28, 1962,

at Nogales, Arizona as an immigrant. Doc. #20, Exh. 1. On April 26, 2006, in a document

titled “Additional Charges of Inadmissibility/Deportability,” the Department of Homeland

Security (DHS) charged that Petitioner is subject to removal because he was convicted of an

aggravated felony and a controlled substance offense. Doc. #20, Exh. 10. The charges are

based on a possession of marijuana conviction in Oklahoma in 1999. Id. Petitioner was

taken into DHS custody when he was served with the charging document. Doc. #20, Exh.

14. 

On July 14, 2006, an Immigration Judge (IJ) ordered Petitioner to be removed from

the United States to Mexico. Doc. #20, Exh. 11. Petitioner filed a Motion to Remand before

the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which was granted. Doc. #20, Exh. 12, 13. On

remand, an IJ again ordered Petitioner to be removed to Mexico. Doc. #20, Exh. 18.

Case 2:07-cv-01902-NVW Document 23 Filed 12/09/08 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 -

Petitioner’s subsequent appeal to the BIA was dismissed on July 24, 2007. Doc. #20, Exh.

19. On the same day, Petitioner filed a Petition for Review and a Motion to Stay in the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals Doc. #20, Exh. 20. The Court granted a temporary stay of removal

and the petition for review remains pending. Id.

Petitioner filed his pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this court on October

10, 2007. Doc. #1. After two dismissals with leave to amend, Petitioner filed a Second

Amended Petition on April 17, 2008. Doc. #4. Petitioner alleges that his continued detention

in immigration custody since April 2006 is unlawful. He asks the court to order his release.

On November 21, 2008, Respondents filed a Response in Opposition to Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus, in which they contend that Petitioner's current detention is lawful

and that his petition should be denied. Doc. #20. On December 2, 2008, however,

Respondents filed a Notice of Suggestion of Mootness in which they assert that Petitioner

was released under an Order of Supervision on November 13, 2008. Doc. #22. In the notice,

Respondents provide a copy of a “Notice to EOIR: Alien Address,” which demonstrates that

Petitioner was released from custody on bond and is residing in Tucson. Doc. #22. Because

Respondents’ evidence demonstrates that Petitioner has obtained the relief he sought in his

petition, this action is moot. See Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 775 (9th Cir. 1991)

(alien’s habeas petition challenging the length of his detention pending deportation was

rendered moot when petitioner was released from custody and reparoled into the United

States). The court will therefore recommend that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

dismissed.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED:

That Petitioner's Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #4) be

DISMISSED 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

Case 2:07-cv-01902-NVW Document 23 Filed 12/09/08 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 -

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 8th day of December, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01902-NVW Document 23 Filed 12/09/08 Page 3 of 3