Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00301/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00301-0/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

MARVIN BADUA, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

KATRINA KANE, et. al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-301-GMS-CRP

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

On February 15, 2008, Marvin Badua (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus (“Habeas Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc 1). At the time, Petitioner

was confined at the Eloy, Arizona ICE detention facility awaiting a hearing on the charge of

removability initiated against him by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). DHS

alleges Petitioner is subject to deportation as an alien who, at any time after admission, has

been convicted of an aggravated felony. INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. §

1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). At age nineteen, Petitioner was allegedly convicted of unlawful sexual

intercourse with a minor in violation of Cal. Pen. Code § 261.5(c). (Doc 1). Petitioner

asserts this conviction was later reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor pursuant to Cal.

Pen. Code § 17(b). 

When Petitioner filed the Habeas Petition, he had been held by DHS for over eight

months. Petitioner argued he was detained beyond a 180-day period without his removal

being significantly likely to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future and that further

detainment violated federal law as interpreted by the Ninth Circuit. Nadarajah v. Gonzales,

433 F.3d 1069, 1080-1081 (9th Cir.2006); Tijani v. Willis, 430 F.3d 1241, 1242 (9th

Cir.2005). On December 5, 2008, Petitioner was released from confinement on a $30,000

bond. (Doc 22, Attachment A). After Petitioner’s release, he filed a Motion to Dismiss Case

Case 2:08-cv-00301-GMS Document 23 Filed 01/13/09 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 -

Without Prejudice. (Doc 22). Respondents did not file a response to Petitioner’s Motion and

the time for filing a response has expired. Because DHS released Petitioner the Habeas

Petition is now moot. This Court recommends that the District Judge, after his independent

review and analysis, dismiss the Habeas Petition as moot and grant Petitioner’s Motion to

Dismiss Case Without Prejudice.

Procedural History

On May 9, 2007, Petitioner attempted to enter the United States through the San

Francisco International Airport as a returning lawful permanent resident. (Doc 15, Exhibit

5). Because Petitioner had an alleged conviction of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor

DHS ordered Petitioner to report to DHS’s office in San Francisco on June 7, 2007. (Doc

1). When Petitioner reported to the office, he was arrested and placed in the removal

proceedings. (Doc 1). The first set of proceedings were terminated on December 12, 2007

but DHS commenced a second set of removal proceedings on December 20, 2007. (Doc 1).

Petitioner remained in custody since his arrest on June 7, 2007. (Doc 1). The second set of

proceedings have not concluded. On December 5, 2008, Petitioner was released from

custody on a $30,000 bond. (Doc 22, Attachment A). After Petitioner’s release, he filed a

Motion to Dismiss Case Without Prejudice. (Doc 22). Respondents have not filed a

response to Petitioner’s Motion and the time for filing such a response has expired.

Analysis

Article III of the United States Constitution empowers federal courts to adjudicate

only actual, ongoing cases or controversies. Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199

(1988). It is insufficient that the case-or-controversy requirement is satisfied when the suit

is filed, the requirement “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, 477-478 (1990) (internal quotations omitted.)

Furthermore, if it appears that the Court is without the power to grant the relief requested by

a habeas petitioner, then that case is moot. Picrin-Person v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 775-776

(9th Cir.1991). 

Case 2:08-cv-00301-GMS Document 23 Filed 01/13/09 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 -

In the case before this Court, Petitioner challenges only the legitimacy of his

continued detention and seeks relief from it in the form of supervised release or a bond

hearing. Petitioner is no longer in custody; he was released on a $30,000 bond December 5,

2008. Petitioner, therefore, no longer has a personal stake in the outcome of this lawsuit.

Additionally, the relief Petitioner requested, his release from continued and potentially

indefinite detention, can no longer be granted by the Court. For these reasons, this case is

moot. 

Petitioner requests his Habeas Petition be dismissed without prejudice. Rule 41 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows an action to “be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request

by order of the court, on terms that the court considers proper” and “[u]nless the order states

otherwise, a dismissal under this paragraph (2) is without prejudice.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(a)(2). In this case, Respondents did not object to Petitioner’s request to dismiss the action

without prejudice. Plaintiff’s request should be granted.

Recommendation

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent review

and analysis, dismiss this Habeas Petition as moot and grant Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss

Case Without Prejudice. When Petitioner was released from detention it rendered his Habeas

Petition moot.

Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), any party may serve and file written objections

within 10 days of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. If

objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. If objections are filed, the

parties should use the following case number: cv 08-301-PHX-GMS.

DATED this 13th day of January, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00301-GMS Document 23 Filed 01/13/09 Page 3 of 3