Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01360/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01360-0/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

Constantino Najera-Diaz,

Petitioner,

v. 

Loretta E. Lynch, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-15-01360-PHX-SPL (ESW)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

On July 17, 2015, Petitioner Constantino Najera-Diaz (“Petitioner”) filed a 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) (the “Petition”) 

seeking release from custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. On

October 21, 2015, the Government filed a “Notice to Court and Suggestion of Mootness”

(Doc. 15) indicating that Petitioner was released from custody on October 14, 2015. The 

Court ordered Petitioner to respond to the Notice. (Doc. 16). On January 25, 2016, 

Petitioner filed a “Motion to Dismiss as Moot” (Doc. 17). Petitioner requests that the 

Court dismiss the Petition on the ground that U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement has released Petitioner. The undersigned finds that the case is now moot. 

Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court grant Petitioner’s “Motion to Dismiss as 

Moot” (Doc. 17). 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Case 2:15-cv-01360-SPL Document 18 Filed 01/28/16 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 

Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) be dismissed as moot.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court direct the Clerk of Court to 

enter judgment accordingly. 

EFFECT OF RECOMMENDATION 

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. 

However, pursuant to Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., the parties shall have fourteen 

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 days 

within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to any 

factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s 

right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant 

to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Dated this 27th day of January, 2016. 

- 2 - 

Case 2:15-cv-01360-SPL Document 18 Filed 01/28/16 Page 2 of 2