Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01938/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01938-0/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

Mustapha Cham,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Jon M. Gurule, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV-14-1938-PHX-DJH (MHB)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE DIANE J. HUMETEWA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Petitioner Mustapha Cham (A099-831-106), who is confined in Corrections

Corporation of America’s Central Arizona Detention Center in Florence, Arizona, has filed

a pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal

Custody (Doc. 1) and a Memorandum of Points and Authorities (Doc. 2). Petitioner has also

filed a pleading entitled “motion for immediate release” (Doc. 12), which is duplicative of

his habeas petition.

In his § 2241 Petition, Petitioner alleges that immigration officials are holding him in

detention pending his removal to Gambia. Petitioner argues that he is entitled to supervised

release from custody because his detention is not authorized by law because there is no

prospect that his removal will be effected 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

Case 2:14-cv-01938-DJH Document 17 Filed 01/23/15 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 -

not detain the alien for more than the presumptively reasonable period of six months); Clark

v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005) (extending the holding in Zadvydas to inadmissible aliens).

He also contends that his ongoing detention violates the Supremacy Clause and violates the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

On December 31, 2014, Respondent filed a Notice to Court and Suggestion of

Mootness indicating that on December 3, 2014, Petitioner was granted release from ICE

custody pursuant to the Government’s Order of Supervision. (Doc. 15, Exh. 1.) “[A]

petitioner’s release from detention under an order of supervision ‘moots his challenge to the

legality of his extended detention.’” Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2007)

(quoting Riley v. INS, 310 F.3d 1253, 1256-57 (10th Cir. 2002)). The Court having reviewed

the record, and it appearing that Petitioner is no longer in custody and that there is no longer

a live case or controversy in this matter, ordered Petitioner to show cause why this action

should not be dismissed as moot.

To date, Petitioner has not responded or otherwise communicated with the Court, and

the time for filing a response to the Court’s Order has expired.

Accordingly, it appearing that the relief requested in Petitioner’s habeas petition has

been granted, and that the habeas petition is now moot and should, therefore, be dismissed,

the Court will recommend that Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus be

dismissed.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED as moot and 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 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);

Case 2:14-cv-01938-DJH Document 17 Filed 01/23/15 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 -

Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, 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 23rd day of January, 2015.

Case 2:14-cv-01938-DJH Document 17 Filed 01/23/15 Page 3 of 3