Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00391/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00391-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Salustiano John de la Cruz Douglas, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Eric Holder, United States Attorney

General, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-391-PHX-DGC (JRI)

ORDER

Beginning in August 2008, Petitioner was detained at the federal detention center in

Eloy, Arizona, pending his removal to the Republic of the Philippines. On February 25,

2009, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241

challenging his continued detention. Dkt. #1. Respondents filed a notice of mootness on the

ground that Petitioner had been removed from the United States on April 27, 2009. Dkt. #14.

On June 12, 2009, United States Magistrate Judge Jay Irwin issued an order requiring

Petitioner, within fifteen days, to show cause why the case should not be dismissed as moot

due to his removal from the United States and for failure to prosecute in light of Petitioner’s

failure to file a notice of change of address. Dkt. #15. In a response dated June 25, 2009 (but

not filed with the Court until July 13, 2009), Petitioner asserts that he previously had filed

a notice of change of address and that his petition is not moot because he is a United States

citizen and his removal was therefore unlawful. Dkt. #17. On July 9, 2009, prior to the

actual filing of Petitioner’s response to the order to show cause, Judge Irwin issued a report

and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the petition be denied as moot and for

failure to prosecute. Dkt. #16.

Case 2:09-cv-00391-DGC Document 19 Filed 08/31/09 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

1

Respondents construe Petitioner’s response to the order to show cause (Dkt. #17) as

an objection to the R&R, and have filed a response to that “objection.” Dkt. #18. As noted

above, Petitioner’s response is dated June 25, 2009, and therefore cannot not be an objection

to the R&R filed two weeks later on July 9, 2009. See Dkt. #16. 

- 2 -

Petitioner has not filed an objection to the R&R, and the time for doing so has expired.

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).1

 Having reviewed the R&R, the

Court concludes that the petition should be dismissed as moot. Because Petitioner has been

removed from the United States, his challenge to detention is moot whether that challenge

is based on the length of the detention, see Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir.

2007), or a claim of United States citizenship, see Flores-Torres v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 708,

711 (9th Cir. 2008). To the extent Petitioner seeks to challenge the legality of his order of

removal, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear that claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5); Iasu v.

Chertoff, 426 F. Supp. 2d 1124, 1127 (S.D. Cal. 2006). 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Dkt. #16) is accepted in part as set forth in this

order.

2. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. #1) is dismissed as moot.

3. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action. 

DATED this 31st day of August, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00391-DGC Document 19 Filed 08/31/09 Page 2 of 2