Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00711/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00711-0/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

STANLEY EDNER, 

Petitioner,

vs.

PHILIP CRAWFORD, Director ICE Field

Office, 

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-0711-PHX-MHM (BPV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On March 14, 2006, Petitioner Stanley Edner, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 alleging that immigration officials were holding

him in detention pending his removal to The Bahamas, but that his removal could not be

effected. Petitioner sought his immediate release from custody on the grounds that his

indefinite detention with no prospect that his removal would be effected in the reasonably

foreseeable future was not authorized by law. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)

(when there is no reasonable likelihood that a foreign government will accept the alien's

return in the reasonably foreseeable future, the immigration laws do not permit the INS to

detain the alien indefinitely; rather, the INS has the authority to detain aliens only for a

reasonable time beyond the normal 90-day statutory removal period).

On July 21, 2006, Respondent filed a Suggestion of Mootness (Doc. # 11) indicating

that Petitioner was released on March 29, 2006, under an Order of Supervision. The

respondent argues the case is now moot. 

Case 2:06-cv-00711-MHM Document 15 Filed 10/24/06 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 -

On September 19, 2006, this court gave Edner until October 20, 2006, to show good

cause why this case should not be dismissed as moot. The court specifically warned Edner

that the case may be dismissed without further notice if he failed to respond. He did not

respond. A review of the docket indicates that the order was returned as undeliverable.

(Document # 14.) 

RECOMMENDATION

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent review

of the record, enter an order DISMISSING the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as MOOT.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 (b), any party may serve and file written objections within

10 days of being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. If objections are not

timely filed, they may be deemed waived. If objections are filed, the parties should use the

following case number: CIV 06-0711-PHX-MHM.

DATED this 24th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00711-MHM Document 15 Filed 10/24/06 Page 2 of 2