Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01225/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01225-1/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

Farid Morceli, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Katrina S. Kane,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-1225-PHX-GMS (ECV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

On June 22, 2011, Petitioner Farid Morceli filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) alleging that immigration officials are holding

him in detention pending his removal to Algeria, but that his removal is not reasonably

foreseeable. Petitioner seeks an immediate release from custody on the grounds that his

indefinite detention is not authorized by law because there is no prospect that he will be

removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)

(when there is no reasonable likelihood that a foreign government will accept an alien’s

return in the reasonably foreseeable future, the INS may not detain the alien for more than

the presumptively reasonable period of six months). In an Order (Doc. 4) filed on August

30, 2011, the District Court Judge reviewed the petition and directed Respondent to file an

answer. Respondent filed a Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 9) on

September 20, 2011. 

On February 14, 2011, Respondent filed a Notice to the Court and Suggestion of

Mootness (Doc. 12) in which she asserts that Petitioner was released under an Order of

Case 2:11-cv-01225-GMS Document 13 Filed 02/28/12 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 -

Supervision on September 13, 2011. Attached to the filing, Respondent provides a copy of

the Order of Supervision establishing that Petitioner has been released from custody under

the terms of the order. Id. Because Respondent’s evidence demonstrates that Petitioner has

obtained the relief he sought in his petition, this action is moot. See Picrin-Peron v. Rison,

930 F.2d 773, 775 (9th Cir. 1991) (alien’s habeas petition challenging the length of his

detention pending deportation was rendered moot when petitioner was released from custody

and reparoled into the United States). The court will therefore recommend that the Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED:

That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED without

prejudice. 

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 14 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); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have 14 days within which to file a response

to the objections. Failure to timely 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. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely 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 of judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

DATED this 28th day of February, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01225-GMS Document 13 Filed 02/28/12 Page 2 of 2