Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01660/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01660-0/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

Carlos Andrade-Pocasangre, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Katrina Kane, et al.,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-1660-PHX-ROS (ECV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE ROSLYN O. SILVER, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT

JUDGE:

On August 5, 2010, Petitioner Carlos Andrade-Pocasangre filed a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). Petitioner alleges that immigration

officials are detaining him under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) and that he is subject to prolonged

detention because he cannot be removed from the United States until the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals resolves his appeal from the denial of his motion to reopen. Petitioner argues that

§ 1231(a) should be construed as requiring a bond hearing before a neutral decision-maker

in which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would have the burden to show he

is a flight risk or danger to the community. Petitioner seeks an order directing DHS to

provide him with a timely bond hearing. 

Case 2:10-cv-01660-ROS Document 21 Filed 04/20/11 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 -

On March 8, 2011, Petitioner filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 14) in

which he argues that a new Ninth Circuit decision, Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081 (9th

Cir. 2011), provides that aliens detained while a motion to reopen is pending under §

1231(a)(6) are entitled to a custody redetermination hearing. On April 15, 2011, Petitioner

filed a Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice (Doc. 19) after he received a custody

redetermination hearing and was released on bond on April 14, 2011. Respondents filed a

Response to Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20) on April 15, 2011, indicating no

opposition to the motion. The court will therefore recommend that the motion to dismiss be

granted and the habeas petition be dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED:

That Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice (Doc. 19) be GRANTED;

That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED without

prejudice; and 

That the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 14) 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 14 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); 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

///

///

Case 2:10-cv-01660-ROS Document 21 Filed 04/20/11 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 -

 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

recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

DATED this 20th day of April, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01660-ROS Document 21 Filed 04/20/11 Page 3 of 3