Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01858/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01858-0/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

PRAK LY, )

)

Petitioner, ) CIV 10-01858 PHX ROS (MEA)

)

v. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

) 

KATRINA KANE, )

) 

Respondent. )

____________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE ROSLYN O. SILVER:

Mr. Prak Ly (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) on

August 27, 2010. Respondents filed a Response in Opposition to

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on January 25, 2011, and

filed a pleading suggesting the petition is moot on March 1,

2011. See Doc. 13. Respondent avers Petitioner was deported on

February 15, 2011.

Background

Petitioner is a native of Cambodia and a citizen of

Thailand. See Response, Exh. 1 & Exh. 2. On February 20, 1981,

the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) admitted

Petitioner to the United States as a refugee. On December 2,

1985, Petitioner adjusted his status to that of a lawful

permanent resident. On September 16, 2005, the Superior Court

of California convicted Petitioner of assault with a deadly

Case 2:10-cv-01858-ROS Document 14 Filed 03/17/11 Page 1 of 6
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-

weapon, for which crime he was sentenced to two years

imprisonment. Id., Exh. 3. 

On October 15, 2009, the Department of Homeland

Security (DHS) placed Petitioner in removal proceedings by

issuing a Notice to Appear. Id., Exh. 4. The government

charged Petitioner with being removable pursuant to section

237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA),

8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), as an alien who at any time after

admission has been convicted of an aggravated felony as defined

in Section 101(a)(43)(F) of the INA, a crime of violence. The

government subsequently lodged additional factual allegations

against Petitioner. Id., Exh. 5. 

Petitioner abandoned all relief from removal and, on

June 9, 2010, an Immigration Judge (IJ) ordered Petitioner

removed to Thailand or to Cambodia. Id., Exh. 6. On April 13,

2010, the government served Petitioner with a Notice to Alien of

File Custody Review, Form I-229(a) Warning for Failure to

Depart, and Instruction Sheet to Detainee Regarding Requirement

to Assist in Removal. Id., Exh. 7. On April 16, 2010,

Petitioner filed a motion to reopen his case to allow him the

opportunity to apply for a waiver and adjust his status.

Petitioner claimed that he was never advised of the waiver.

Id., Exh. 8. On June 9, 2010, the IJ denied Petitioner’s motion

to reopen, finding that Petitioner was provided with numerous

opportunities to apply for relief but explicitly declined to

pursue relief and that Petitioner had requested the issuance of

a final order of removal. Id., Exh. 9. 

Case 2:10-cv-01858-ROS Document 14 Filed 03/17/11 Page 2 of 6
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-

On July 30, 2010, the government served Petitioner with

a Decision to Continue Detention. Id., Exh. 10. In reaching this

decision, the government determined that Petitioner posed a

danger to the community and was a significant flight risk. On

October 17, 2010, the government served Petitioner with a

Decision to Continue Detention. Id., Exh. 11. In reaching this

decision, the government determined that a request for travel

documents had been submitted and the government expected to

obtain travel documents from the Consulate of Cambodia in the

reasonably foreseeable future. On January 5, 2011, the

government served Petitioner with a Decision to Continue

Detention. Id., Exh. 12. In reaching this decision, the

government determined that travel documents had been issued by

the Consulate of Cambodia and Petitioner’s removal was expected

in the reasonably foreseeable future.

Respondents present evidence to the Court that

Petitioner was removed from the United States on or about

February 15, 2011. Because the petition for habeas relief

attacks only the legitimacy of Petitioner’s continued detention,

the petition is now moot. The case-or-controversy requirement

of Article III, § 2, of the United States Constitution “subsists

through all stages of federal judicial proceedings ... The

parties must continue to have a personal stake in the outcome of

the lawsuit.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472,

477-78, 110 S. Ct. 1249, 1253-54 (1990) (internal quotations

omitted). If it appears that the Court is without the power to

grant the relief requested by a habeas petitioner, then that

case is moot. See Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 775 (9th

Case 2:10-cv-01858-ROS Document 14 Filed 03/17/11 Page 3 of 6
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

-4-

Cir. 1991). 

The relief that Petitioner requested in his habeas

petition, i.e., his release from continued and potentially

indefinite detention, can no longer be granted by the Court.

Therefore, this habeas action, alleging Petitioner’s continued

detention violates federal law and his constitutional rights, is

moot. See Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2007)

(holding that “there must be some remaining ‘collateral

consequence’ that may be redressed by success on the petition”

in order for a habeas to continue); Picrin-Peron, 930 F.2d at

775; Ferry v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 1117, 1132 (10th Cir. 2006);

Soliman v. United States, 296 F.3d 1237, 1243 (11th Cir. 2002).

Because Petitioner is no longer in detention, and

because his release is entirely without conditions or limits,

his habeas petition alleging that his previous detention was

unauthorized is now moot. See Kaur v. Holder, 561 F.3d 957, 959

(9th Cir. 2009); Abdala, 488 F.3d at 1065 Qassam v. Bush, 466

F.3d 1073, 1075 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (exception to mootness for

“voluntary cessation” does not apply where there is no

reasonable expectation that the alleged government conduct will

recur, and interim events have completely eradicated the effects

of the alleged violation).

Conclusion

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is moot because

the petition challenges only the legitimacy of Petitioner’s

continued detention and Petitioner has now been released from

detention without any restrictions or apprehension of immediate

re-detention. There is no existing case or controversy over

Case 2:10-cv-01858-ROS Document 14 Filed 03/17/11 Page 4 of 6
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

-5-

which this Court may exercise jurisdiction and, therefore, this

case is moot.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Mr. Ly’s Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed with prejudice 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.

Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the

date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to

file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter,

the parties have fourteen (14) days within which to file a

response to the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, Local Rules

of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the

District of Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation

may not exceed seventeen (17) pages in length. 

Failure to timely file objections to any factual or

legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered

a waiver of a party’s right to de novo appellate consideration

of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Failure to timely file

objections to any factual or legal determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver of a party’s right to

appellate review of the findings of fact and conclusions of law

Case 2:10-cv-01858-ROS Document 14 Filed 03/17/11 Page 5 of 6
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

-6-

in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge. 

DATED this 16th day of March, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01858-ROS Document 14 Filed 03/17/11 Page 6 of 6