Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01863/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01863-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
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

Jose Max Sanchez-Garzona, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Alberto Gonzales, United States 

Attorney General,

Respondents, 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1863-PHX-MHM (JI)

 

ORDER

On August 31, 2006, Petitioner, through counsel, has filed a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Dkt. #1), asserting that Petitioner received ineffective

assistance of counsel during his immigration appeal proceeding, which resulted in the

dismissal of that appeal for failure to prosecute. On October 5, 2006, Petitioner filed the

instant Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (Dkt. #11). The matter was referred to United States

Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin who has issued a Report and Recommendation that

recommends that the Court grant Petitioner's Motion and Dismiss the action without

prejudice. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court must review the legal analysis in the Report and Recommendation de novo.

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court must review the factual analysis in the Report and

Recommendation de novo for those facts to which objections are filed. "Failure to object to

Case 2:06-cv-01863-MHM Document 13 Filed 01/12/07 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 -

a magistrate judge's recommendation waives all objections to the judge's findings of fact."

Jones v. Wood, 207 F.3d 557, 562 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000). 

DISCUSSION

On October 5, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (Dkt.

#11) asserting that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reopened his appeal of removal

order, thereby rendering inappropriate the continuation of this habeas proceeding in this

Court. Petitioner requests the dismissal of this action without prejudice. Respondent has not

responded to the Motion. 

A district court generally "should not entertain a habeas corpus petition while there is

an appeal pending" in the Court of Appeals. Feldman v. Henman, 815 F.2d 1318, 1320

(1987). The Magistrate Judge recommends granting without prejudice Petitioner's Motion for

Voluntary Dismissal because the disposition of a direct appeal may render a habeas petition

moot. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation (Dkt. #12) as the Order of the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss (Dkt.

#11) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. #1)

is dismissed without prejudice. 

DATED this 9th day of January, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01863-MHM Document 13 Filed 01/12/07 Page 2 of 2