Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01196/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01196-0/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

Vu Van Le, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Katrina S. Kane, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 09-1196-PHX-ROS (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE ROSLYN O. SILVER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Petitioner Vu Van Le filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 on June 3, 2009. Le alleges that immigration officials are holding him in detention

pending his removal to Vietnam. 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 August 11, 2009, the Government filed a Suggestion of Mootness, attaching an Order of

Supervision dated August 7, 2009 indicating Le’s release. See Doc. #14.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Vu Van Le’s Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus be denied 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

parties shall have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

Case 2:09-cv-01196-ROS Document 15 Filed 08/11/09 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 -

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 11th day of August, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01196-ROS Document 15 Filed 08/11/09 Page 2 of 2