Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01553/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01553-0/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

Ravinder Singh Gill,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Janet Napolitano, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 09-1553-PHX-PGR (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE PAUL G. ROSENBLATT, U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE:

Ravinder Singh Gill, formerly confined at the Eloy Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona,

filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on July 27, 2009, alleging that immigration officials

are holding him in detention pending his removal to India. He 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 September 18, 2009, the Court ordered Respondents to answer the

petition (Doc. #4). On September 25, 2009, a copy of the Court’s September 18 Order was

returned as undeliverable, indicating that Gill is no longer in custody (Doc. #13).

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Ravinder Singh Gill’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 2:09-cv-01553-PGR Document 15 Filed 10/01/09 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 ten 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(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten 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. ReynaTapia, 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 1st day of October, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01553-PGR Document 15 Filed 10/01/09 Page 2 of 2