Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00051/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00051-1/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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SARBJIT SINGH, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., )

)

)

Respondents. )

____________________________________)

1:07-cv-00051-AWI-TAG-HC

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO

GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

(Doc. 7)

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 

Petitioner originally filed his petition on January 10, 2007, alleging that he was being detained

by the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) in violation of

his federal constitutional rights. (Doc. 1). Petitioner alleged that he was a citizen of India and

that he is currently subject to a final order of removal to that country. (Doc. 1, p. 2). Petitioner

also alleges that he has been in the continuous custody of ICE since June 6, 2006, and that his

continued detention is in violation of his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment and the

United States Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). (Doc. 1,

p. 4). The Petition requested Petitioner’s immediate release under reasonably conditions of

supervision. (Id. at p. 5).

On March 8, 2007, Respondent filed the instant motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 

(Doc. 7). In that motion, Respondent contends that the Court now lacks jurisdiction over the

proceedings because Petitioner has been released on order of supervision and is no longer in

detention. (Doc. 7, p. 1). In support of this motion, Respondent also submitted a “Release

Case 1:07-cv-00051-AWI-TAG Document 10 Filed 03/20/07 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

The Rules Governing § 2254 Cases can be applied to petitions other than those brought under § 2254 at the Court’s 1

discretion. See, Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.

2

Notification,” dated March 8, 2007, from ICE to Petitioner ordering his supervised release. 

(Doc. 7-2). Petitioner has not filed any response to the motion to dismiss.

DISCUSSION

A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner can show

that “he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A habeas

corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the “legality or duration” of his

confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir.1991), quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez,

411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases. However, the petition must “allege facts concerning the applicant’s

commitment or detention,” 28 U.S.C. § 2242, and the Petitioner must make specific factual

allegations that would entitle him to habeas corpus relief if they are true. O’Bremski v. Maass,

915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir.1990). If it may be conclusively determined from the face of the

petition that Petitioner is not entitled to relief on the grounds alleged, then the petition must be

dismissed. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases ; Peterson v. Wilson, 373 F.2d 737, 1

738 (9th Cir.1967).

Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, the Court is required to make a

preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. “If it plainly appears from the

face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief,” the Court must dismiss the

petition. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; see also, Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908

F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990).

In the instant habeas proceedings, the only issue before this Court is the lawfulness of

Petitioner’s ongoing detention by Respondent, and the only relief which the Court could have

afforded to Petitioner is an order releasing him from custody in the event that the Court

determined that his continued detention by ICE was in violation of Petitioner’s constitutional

rights. The record now before the Court establishes that Petitioner was released from

Case 1:07-cv-00051-AWI-TAG Document 10 Filed 03/20/07 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

Respondent’s custody on or about March 8, 2007, on supervised release. Such “supervised

release” is precisely the relief Petitioner requested in his petition. 

Thus, there is no further relief that the Court can afford Petitioner. Under such circumstances,

the petition is moot. Accordingly, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

should be GRANTED and the Petition should be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim as it

is now MOOT. 

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS as follows:

1. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. 7), should be GRANTED;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), should be DISMISSED for

failure to state a claim as it is now MOOT.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the District Judge assigned to this

case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within

fifteen (15) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the

court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate

Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c). The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00051-AWI-TAG Document 10 Filed 03/20/07 Page 3 of 3