Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00096/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00096-0/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

Lei Meng, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Eric Holder, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-0096-PHX-DGC (ECV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE DAVID G. CAMPBELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

On January 13, 2011, Petitioner Lei Meng filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) alleging that immigration officials are holding

him in detention pending his removal to the People’s Republic of China, but that his removal

is not reasonably foreseeable. Petitioner seeks an immediate release from custody on the

grounds that his indefinite detention is not authorized by law because there is no prospect

that he will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533

U.S. 678 (2001) (when there is no reasonable likelihood that a foreign government will

accept an alien’s return in the reasonably foreseeable future, the INS may not detain the alien

for more than the presumptively reasonable period of six months). In an Order (Doc. 6) filed

Case 2:11-cv-00096-DGC Document 21 Filed 06/16/11 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 9, 2011, the District Court Judge reviewed the petition and directed Respondents

to file an answer. 

On March 30, 2011, Respondents filed a Response in Opposition to Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 15). On April 19, 2011, counsel for Petitioner filed a Notice of

Entry of Appearance (Doc. 17) and, on the same day, filed a Reply to Respondents’

Response in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 18) on Petitioner’s

behalf. Petitioner now seeks a dismissal of his habeas petition because he has received

the relief he requested. Petitioner has filed a Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 20) in which he states that he was released from custody

on approximately May 31, 2011. In light of this change in Petitioner’s custody status, the

court will 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 Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus (Doc. 20) be GRANTED; and

That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) be 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

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

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the

Case 2:11-cv-00096-DGC Document 21 Filed 06/16/11 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 -

findings of fact in an order of judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s

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

DATED this 16th day of June, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00096-DGC Document 21 Filed 06/16/11 Page 3 of 3