Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00617/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00617-0/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

Mushebaig Jehangirbaig Mirza, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Katrina Kane, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 10-0617-PHX-DGC (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE DAVID G. CAMPBELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Mushebaig Jehangirbaig Mirza filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2241 on March 19, 2010, alleging that immigration officials are holding him in

detention pending his removal to India. Mirza 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). On May 26, 2010, the government filed a Suggestion of Mootness, notifying the

Court that Mirza had been released from custody on an Order of Supervision on March 25,

2010. See Doc. #5.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Mushebaig Jehangirbaig Mirza’s

petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as moot (Doc. #1).

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

Case 2:10-cv-00617-DGC Document 6 Filed 05/27/10 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 -

parties shall have fourteen 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);

Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have seven

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 26th day of May, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00617-DGC Document 6 Filed 05/27/10 Page 2 of 2