Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01373/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01373-0/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 

TO THE HONORABLE JOHN J. TUCHI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 On July 20, 2015, Petitioner Kon Bagat, who was then detained at the Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement Eloy Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona, filed a pro se Petition 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) 

I. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSION 

Petitioner asserts that he has been detained for more than six months beyond the 

date of his final order of removal, in violation of the decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 

U.S. 678 (2001). (Doc. 1.) In his Petition, Petitioner seeks release from detention under 

an order of supervision. However, Petitioner has been released from custody under an 

order of supervision dated September 4, 2015. (Doc. 10-1.) Therefore, the Petition is 

now moot. 

Kon Bagat, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Albert Carter, et al., 

Respondent. 

 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. 2:15-cv-01373-JJT-JZB

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 2:15-cv-01373-JJT Document 11 Filed 10/28/15 Page 1 of 4
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 

II. BACKGROUND 

A. FACTS OF THE CASE 

 Petitioner is a native and citizen of North Sudan. (Doc. 1 at 4.) In March 2009, an 

Immigration Judge ordered Petitioner removed to North Sudan. (Id.) Petitioner did not 

appeal. On January 9, 2015, Petitioner was transferred from criminal custody to the 

custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). (Id.) On January 10, 2015, 

Petitioner arrived at the Eloy Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona. (Id.) Petitioner avers he 

has fully cooperated in efforts to obtain his travel documents. (Id.) 

 B. FEDERAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

 On July 20, 2015, Petitioner filed a Petition pursuant to § 2241, asserting that he 

has been detained for more than six months beyond the date his order of removal became 

final, in violation of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 

533 U.S. 678 (2001). (Doc. 1.) In his habeas Petition, Petitioner seeks his immediate 

release from detention, under an order of supervision. (Id.) Petitioner alleges that, 

because his removal is not significantly likely to occur in the reasonably foreseeable 

future, his continued detention violates the holding of Zadvydas. 

 On September 11, 2015, Respondents filed a Notice stating that Petitioner has 

been granted the relief requested in his habeas Petition, i.e., Petitioner has been released 

from custody under an order of supervision dated September 4, 2015. (Doc. 10-1) 

(“Because the Service has not affected your deportation or removal during the period 

prescribed by law, it is ordered that you be placed under supervision and permitted to be 

at large under the following conditions ...”). Therefore, Respondents argue, the Petition 

is now moot. (Doc. 10.) 

III. PETITIONER’S PETITION IS MOOT. 

The writ of habeas corpus affords relief to persons in custody pursuant to the 

judgment of a court in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. “The case or controversy requirement of Article III admonishes 

federal courts to avoid premature adjudication and to abstain from entangling themselves 

Case 2:15-cv-01373-JJT Document 11 Filed 10/28/15 Page 2 of 4
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 

in abstract disagreements.” U.S. West, Inc. v. Tristani, 182 F.3d 1202, 1208 (10th Cir. 

1999) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court must dismiss a case as 

moot if, at any point, it becomes certain either that “‘the allegedly wrongful behavior 

could not reasonably be expected to recur,’” Friends of the Earth Inc. v. Laidlaw 

Environmental Assoc. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (citation omitted), or that there is 

no effective relief remaining for the court to provide. See Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 

149, 150 (1996). 

The Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider a habeas claim that 

is moot. See, e.g., McCullough v. Graber, 726 F.3d 1057, 1060 (9th Cir. 2013). 

Petitioner’s case is rendered moot by the fact that he has received the relief requested. 

See Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1064-65 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing and collecting 

cases wherein a petitioner’s release from detention or parole or their removal rendered a 

habeas petition moot); Flores–Torres v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 708, 710 & n.3 (9th Cir. 

2008) (dismissing as moot a challenge to immigration detention without a hearing 

because the alien had subsequently received a hearing). Compare Levine v. Apker, 455 

F.3d 71, 77 (2d Cir. 2006) (finding habeas petition was not moot where petitioner’s 

supervised release left open the possibility of the court’s issuance of effectual relief). 

IV. CONCLUSION

 Petitioner no longer has a personal stake in the outcome of his argument because 

he has been afforded the relief sought from Respondents. Because Petitioner no longer 

has a personal stake in the relief sought, his Petition is moot. Abbot v. Federal Bureau of 

Prisons, 771 F.3d 512, 513 (9th Cir. 2014). See also Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 

(1998); Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 2010). 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) be DENIED and DISMISSED 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-01373-JJT Document 11 Filed 10/28/15 Page 3 of 4
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 

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The 

parties shall have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this Report and 

Recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have 14 days 

within which to file a response to the objections. 

 Failure to timely 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 to timely 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 of judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

 Dated this 28th day of October, 2015. 

Honorable John Z. Boyle 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:15-cv-01373-JJT Document 11 Filed 10/28/15 Page 4 of 4