Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02214/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02214-0/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

Ali Ibrahim Abu Salim, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Alberto Gonzales, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-2214-PHX-JWS (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE JOHN W. SEDWICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

On September 18, 2006, Ali Ibrahim Abu Salim filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, contending that immigration officials are holding him

in detention pending his removal to Palestine, but that his removal cannot be effected. He

argues that he is entitled to immediate release from custody because his indefinite detention

with no prospect that his removal will be effected in the reasonably foreseeable future is not

authorized by law. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). On September 19, 2006, the

Court issued a Notice of Assignment (Doc. #2). On October 4, 2006, the Court ordered

Respondents to answer the petition (Doc. #3). On October 10, 2006, copies of the Court's

Orders were returned as undeliverable, "unable to forward," with the notation that Abu Salim

was "not in custody." See Doc. #5, 6.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Abu Salim's petition be dismissed as

MOOT (Doc. #1).

Case 2:06-cv-02214-JWS Document 7 Filed 10/16/06 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

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. ReynaTapia, 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 16th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-02214-JWS Document 7 Filed 10/16/06 Page 2 of 2