Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01132/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01132-0/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

MAKALE DENG KUAL AROB, )

)

Petitioner, ) CIV 09-01132 PHX PGR (MEA)

)

v. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

) 

KATRINA KANE, )

) 

Respondent. )

____________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE PAUL G. ROSENBLATT:

Mr. Makale Deng Kual Arob (“Petitioner”), filed a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 2241 on May 26, 2009, and an amended petition on July

24, 2009, asserting his continued detention by Respondent

violated United States law and his constitutional rights. At

that time, Petitioner was confined in Respondents’ custody in

Florence, Arizona. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the

petition on November 16, 2009, asserting the petition for relief

is now moot because Petitioner has been released from detention

under an order of supervision. See Docket No. 10. 

1. Procedural History

The amended petition contends Petitioner’s detention

pending his deportation to Sudan, as ordered on January 21,

2009, violates the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in

Zadvydas v. Davis.

Case 2:09-cv-01132-PGR Document 11 Filed 12/23/09 Page 1 of 4
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-

2. Analysis

Respondents present evidence to the Court that

Petitioner was released from detention on or about August 14,

2009. Because the amended petition for habeas relief attacks

only Petitioner’s continued detention, the petition is now moot.

The case-or-controversy requirement of Article III, § 2, of the

United States Constitution “subsists through all stages of

federal judicial proceedings ... The parties must continue to

have a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit.” Lewis v.

Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78, 110 S. Ct. 1249,

1253-54 (1990) (internal quotations omitted). If it appears

that the Court is without the power to grant the relief

requested by a habeas petitioner, then that case is moot. See

Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 775 (9th Cir. 1991). 

The relief that Petitioner requested in his amended

habeas petition, i.e., his release from continued and

potentially indefinite detention, can no longer be granted by

the Court. Therefore, this habeas action, alleging his

continued detention violates federal law and his constitutional

rights, is moot. See Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th

Cir. 2007); Picrin-Peron, 930 F.2d at 775; Ferry v. Gonzales,

457 F.3d 1117, 1132 (10th Cir. 2006); Soliman v. United States,

296 F.3d 1237, 1243 (11th Cir. 2002).

3. Conclusion

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is moot because

the petition challenges only the legitimacy of Petitioner’s

continued detention and Petitioner has now been released from

detention under an Order of Supervision. There is no existing

Case 2:09-cv-01132-PGR Document 11 Filed 12/23/09 Page 2 of 4
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-

case or controversy over which this Court may exercise

jurisdiction and, therefore, this case is moot.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Mr. Kual Arob’s

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed with prejudice

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. 

Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the

date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to

file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter,

the parties have fourteen (14) days within which to file a

response to the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, Local Rules

of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the

District of Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation

may not exceed seventeen (17) pages in length. Failure to

timely file objections to any factual or legal determinations of

the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s

right to de novo appellate consideration of the issues. See

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

2003) (en banc). Failure to timely file objections to any

factual or legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will

constitute a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of

the findings of fact and conclusions of law in an order or

Case 2:09-cv-01132-PGR Document 11 Filed 12/23/09 Page 3 of 4
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

-4-

judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge. 

DATED this 22nd day of December, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01132-PGR Document 11 Filed 12/23/09 Page 4 of 4