Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01815/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01815-0/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

Diego Miguel-Miguel,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Katrina Kane, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1815-PHX-JWS (LOA)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter arises on Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241. (docket # 1) Petitioner claims that his detention pending removal is indefinite

and violates his substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.

He further argues that he should be released on bail pending the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals’ resolution of his pending petition for review. On October 26, 2007, Respondents

filed a Motion to Dismiss asserting that this matter is moot because Petitioner was released

from custody. (docket # 12) The Court ordered Petitioner to file a Response on or before

November 16, 2007. Petitioner filed a timely response advising the Court that he has been

released from custody and does not oppose dismissal “without prejudice.” (docket # 16)

Analysis

In his § 2241 Petition, Petitioner argues that he is entitled to immediate release

from custody or a hearing before an Immigration Judge because his prolonged and

indefinite detention during removal proceedings violates the Due Process clause. 

After Petitioner filed his Petition, on October 25, 2007, he was released from

Case 2:07-cv-01815-JWS Document 17 Filed 11/19/07 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 -

custody. (dockets # 13, # 16) Because Petitioner has been released from custody he has

been awarded the relief he was seeking in his § 2241 petition.

The jurisdiction of the federal courts depends on the existence of a “case or

controversy.” PUC v. FERC, 100 F.3d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir. 1996). Specifically, “Article

III of the Constitution mandates that an actual case or controversy exist at all stages of

judicial review.” Ortez v. Chandler, 845 F.2d 573, 574-575 (5th Cir. 1988)(holding that

no case or controversy existed where movant, who challenged his bond determination,

had been deported because the relief he requested — reduction of his bond — could no

longer be effected.) This Court lacks jurisdiction to review moot issues. Gator.com

Corp. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 398 F.3d 1125, 1128-29 (9th Cir. 2005)(stating that “[i]t is an

inexorable command of the United States Constitution that the federal courts confine

themselves to deciding actual cases and controversies.”). 

Here, Petitioner challenges his prolonged and indefinite detention pending removal

proceedings. In view of Petitioner’s release from custody, the relief he requests —

release from custody or a hearing before an Immigration Judge — can no longer be

effected. Therefore, no “case or controversy” remains and the Petition is moot. PicrinPeron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 1991)(finding that because petitioner only

requested release from custody and had been released, the court could provide no further

relief and the petition was properly dismissed.); American Rivers v. National Marine

Fisheries Services, 126 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 1997)(stating that “[a] claim is moot if it

has lost its character as a present, live controversy.”)(citation omitted); Xie v. Schiltgen,

No. C 99-4150 VRW, 2001 WL 637409, * 1 (N.D. Cal., May 24, 2001). In cases in

which the actions sought to be enjoined or ordered have already occurred, and the courts

“cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot.” Friends of the Earth, Inc.

v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Accordingly,

Case 2:07-cv-01815-JWS Document 17 Filed 11/19/07 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 -

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (docket

# 12) be GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus (docket # 1) be DENIED 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 Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court=s judgment. The

parties shall have ten 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(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties

have ten 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 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 19th day of November, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01815-JWS Document 17 Filed 11/19/07 Page 3 of 3