Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01794/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01794-0/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

LAZARUS K. TUMUSTIME, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIV 08-01794 PHX ROS (MEA)

) 

KATRINA KANE, DAVID KOLLUS, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TERRY ALTMAN, )

) 

Respondents. )

______________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE ROSLYN O. SILVER:

Mr. Lazarus Tumustime (“Petitioner”), filed a Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

2241 on September 30, 2008, asserting his continued detention by

Respondents pending his removal from the United States to Rwanda

or Uganda violated United States law. On December 19, 2008,

Respondents filed a pleading notifying the Court that Petitioner

had been released under an order of supervision and suggest the

case is now moot. See Docket No. 15. 

1. Procedural History

Petitioner asserts he was born in Uganda and that his

parents were Rwandan refugees. See Docket No. 1. Petitioner

alleges he first arrived in the United States in 1992 on a B1

visa. Id. Petitioner sought asylum in 1993, which status was

denied. Id. Petitioner was placed in removal proceedings in

Case 2:08-cv-01794-ROS Document 17 Filed 12/29/08 Page 1 of 4
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-

1995 and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal

of an Immigration Judge’s order of removal on May 19, 1996. Id.

Petitioner further states that he applied for a Ugandan passport

in 1997, which application was denied. 

Petitioner asserts he was taken into the custody of the

Department of Homeland Security on April 9, 2008. Id.

Petitioner alleges he filed a motion to reopen his immigration

proceedings, which motion was denied by the BIA in 2008. Id.

Citing Zadvydas v. Davis, Petitioner alleges in his section 2241

petition that he has been wrongfully detained, i.e., he has been

detained for more than 180 days after his order of removal

became final. Id. The only relief sought in the habeas

petition is Petitioner’s release from detention.

In their suggestion of mootness, Respondents aver that

Petitioner was released from detention under an Order of

Supervision signed by Petitioner on December 17, 2008. See

Docket No. 15. 

2. Analysis

Respondents present evidence to the Court that

Petitioner was released from detention. Because the petition

for habeas relief attacks only 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

Case 2:08-cv-01794-ROS Document 17 Filed 12/29/08 Page 2 of 4
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-

grant the relief requested by a habeas petitioner, then that

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

Cir. 1991). 

Petitioner was released from detention approximately

three months after he filed his federal habeas petition. 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 his 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); 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).

3. 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 under an Order of Supervision. There is no existing

case or controversy over which this Court may exercise

jurisdiction and, therefore, this case is moot.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Mr. Tumustime’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

Case 2:08-cv-01794-ROS Document 17 Filed 12/29/08 Page 3 of 4
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-

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 ten (10) 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 ten (10) 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

in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge. 

DATED this 24th day of December, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-01794-ROS Document 17 Filed 12/29/08 Page 4 of 4