Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01448/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01448-0/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

Juan Arellano-Valle, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Eric H. Holder, Jr. United States Attorney

General, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 09-1448-PHX-JAT (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE JAMES A. TEILBORG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Represented by counsel, Petitioner Juan Arrellano-Valle filed a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on July 13, 2009. In his petition, he alleges that

as a result of a heart-lung transplant he received on June 7, 2008 and his compromised

immune system, his continued detention poses a grave danger to his survival (Doc. #3). On

July 20, he filed an emergency motion for an expedited hearing (Doc. #13). On July 28,

2009, Arellano moved to withdraw his petition, based on the government’s agreement to

release him.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Juan Arellano’s Motion to Withdraw

Petition be granted and that his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed (Doc. #3,

18).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that his Emergency Motion to Expedite Hearing is

denied as moot (Doc. #13).

Case 2:09-cv-01448-JAT Document 21 Filed 08/07/09 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 -

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

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 6th day of August, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01448-JAT Document 21 Filed 08/07/09 Page 2 of 2