Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00779/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00779-0/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

Jean Yves Brezilien, ) Case No. CV 07-779-PHX-EHC (JM)

)

Petitioner, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

)

v. )

)

Katrina Kane, )

)

Respondent. )

_________________________________)

Petitioner Jean Yves Brezilien filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 626(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule – Civil 72.1(b). Pending before the

Court is Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 11] arguing that this matter should be

dismissed because the relief requested in the petition has been granted thereby rendering this

case moot. Petitioner has not responded to the Respondent’s motion. The Magistrate Judge

agrees with Respondent’s position and, therefore, recommends that this case be dismissed

as moot. 

I. Background

Prior to filing the instant petition, Petitioner filed a separate pro se Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus with this Court. Brezilien v. Crawford, CV 05-3790-MHM (HCE). In that

petition, Petitioner alleged that he was being detained illegally and requested a bond hearing.

CV 05-3790-MHM (HCE), Docket No. 1. On June 30, 2008, the District Court granted the

petition in CV 05-3790 and ordered the government to grant Petitioner a bond hearing. The

clerk entered judgment accordingly. Id., Docket Nos. 13 & 14. The government did not

appeal from that decision and granted the bond hearing. On August 7, 2008, the Immigration

Judge ordered Petitioner released on a $1,500.00 bond. Petitioner posted bond and was

Case 2:07-cv-00779-EHC Document 12 Filed 11/25/08 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

- 2 -

released.

Respondent filed the instant motion on September 22, 2008, alleging that Petitioner’s

release has rendered this case moot. Petitioner has not responded to the motion. 

II. Discussion

A case is moot if it does not satisfy the case or controversy requirement of Article III,

§ 2, of the Constitution. Caswell v. Calderon, 363 F.3d 832, 836 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing

Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)). A case becomes moot if “the issues presented are

no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Murphy v.

Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1984). The court does not have the power to decide a case that

does not affect the rights of the litigants. Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472,

477-78 (1990); Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 527-28 (9th Cir. 1996).

The Ninth Circuit has held that where a habeas petitioner requests only that he be

released from immigration custody and is then released while the case remains pending, there

is no further relief the court can provide. Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 775-76 (9th

Cir. 1991). In such situations, the Ninth Circuit will dismiss the action. Id. at 776. Based

on these directives, the instant case is moot. The petition alleges that Petitioner is being

detained indefinitely and requests that the Court “issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the

respondent to release the petitioner forthwith . . . .” Docket No. 1, p. 17. The documentation

provided by the Respondent indicates that Petitioner has been released from custody.

Petitioner has not challenged this assertion. Accordingly, there is no further relief the court

can provide and the case is moot. See Picrin-Peron, 930 F.2d at 776. 

III. Recommendation

Based on the foregoing and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule – Civil

72.1(b), the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after an independent

review of the record, dismiss as moot Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus [Docket

No. 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

Case 2:07-cv-00779-EHC Document 12 Filed 11/25/08 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 -

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. 

However, the parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of service of a copy of this

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the District Court. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Thereafter, the parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to the objections.

If any objections are filed, this action should be designated case number: CV 07-779-PHXEHC. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate

Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues.

See United States v. Reyna-Tapia 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

DATED this 25th day of November, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00779-EHC Document 12 Filed 11/25/08 Page 3 of 3