Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00166/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00166-0/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

Sukhwinder Singh,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Eric Holder, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV-13-0166-PHX-PGR (MHB)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE PAUL G. ROSENBLATT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Petitioner Sukhwinder Singh (A094-023-888), who is confined in the Florence

Service Processing Center in Florence, Arizona, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 through counsel. In his habeas petition, Petitioner

claims that under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), his detention without a bond

hearing for more than six months following the entry of a final order of removal is unlawful.

The Court subsequently screened the Petition and stated that although Zadvydas is

inapplicable because Petitioner is an arriving alien who was issued an expedited order of

removal, and is mandatorily detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV), not §

1231(a)(6), the Court required an answer to the Petition in light of the Ninth Circuit’s recent

holding in Rodriguez v. Robbins, No. 12-56734, 2013 WL 1607706 (9th Cir. Apr. 16, 2013)

(holding that a class of aliens are entitled to a preliminary injunction because they are likely

Case 2:13-cv-00166-PGR Document 18 Filed 08/28/13 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 -

to succeed on their claim that § 1225(b) authorizes detention without a bond hearing for no

more than six months).

On August 8, 2013, Respondents filed a Notice to Court and Suggestion of Mootness

indicating that on July 17, 2013, Petitioner was released from custody pursuant to the

Government’s Order of Supervision. (Doc. 16, Exh. 1.) Thus, it appearing that Petitioner

is no longer in custody at the Florence Service Processing Center and that there is no longer

a live case or controversy in this matter, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause within

ten (10) days from the date of its Order why this action should not be dismissed as moot. To

date, Petitioner has not responded or otherwise communicated with the Court, and the time

for filing a response to the Court’s Order has expired.

It appearing that the relief requested in Petitioner’s habeas petition has been granted,

and that the habeas petition is now moot and should, therefore, be dismissed, the Court will

recommend that Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED as moot and without

prejudice.

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. 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen

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

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report

and Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any

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

Case 2:13-cv-00166-PGR Document 18 Filed 08/28/13 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 -

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

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 28th day of August, 2013.

Case 2:13-cv-00166-PGR Document 18 Filed 08/28/13 Page 3 of 3