Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-00756/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-00756-0/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 

Manvinder Singh, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Jeh Johnson, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-16-0756-PHX-DLR (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO THE HONORABLE DOUGLAS L. RAYES, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 Manvinder Singh filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241 arguing that he should have a bond hearing or be released from the custody of 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Doc. 1) Respondents have informed the Court 

that Singh was released from custody on July 27, 2016, when he was removed to India. 

(Doc. 12) Thus, Singh has received the relief that he had requested. 

 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Manvinder Singh’s Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed as moot.

 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 fourteen 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(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, 

Case 2:16-cv-00756-DLR Document 13 Filed 08/03/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

the parties have fourteen 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. Reyna-Tapia, 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 3rd day of August, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-00756-DLR Document 13 Filed 08/03/16 Page 2 of 2