Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01558/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01558-0/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

YOHANNEZ ANTONNIO, )

)

Petitioner, ) CIV 09-01558 PHX GMS (MEA)

)

v. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

) 

DARREN MONDAY, )

) 

Respondent. )

____________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW:

Mr. Yohannez Antonnio (“Petitioner”), filed a Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

2241 on June 15, 2009, and an amended petition on October 14,

2009. See Docket No. 9. Petitioner asserts he was taken into

Respondent’s custody on or about May 9, 2009. In the amended

petition Mr. Antonnio asserts his detention by Respondent

violates United States law and his constitutional rights. At

the time his petition was filed, Petitioner was confined in

Eloy, Arizona. 

On February 19, 2009, Respondent filed a notice to the

Court asserting the petition for relief in this matter is now

moot because Petitioner has been removed from the United States.

See Docket No. 15. 

Case 2:09-cv-01558-GMS Document 17 Filed 03/05/10 Page 1 of 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

-2-

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Ethiopia.

Petitioner entered the United States on or about August 7, 1981.

See Docket No. 15, Attach.

Respondent presents evidence to the Court that

Petitioner was released from detention, i.e., deported from the

United States from Chicago on or about February 16, 2010. Id.,

Attach. At the time of his deportation Petitioner warranted

that he did not have any appeal of his “immigration case”

pending with the Board of Immigration Appeals, the United States

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, or the District Court.

The case-or-controversy requirement of Article III, §

2, of the United States Constitution “subsists through all

stages of federal judicial proceedings ... The parties must

continue to have a personal stake in the outcome of the

lawsuit.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472,

477-78, 110 S. Ct. 1249, 1253-54 (1990) (internal quotations

omitted). If it appears that the Court is without the power to

grant the relief requested by a habeas petitioner, then that

case is moot. See Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 775 (9th

Cir. 1991). 

Petitioner was deported on or about February 16, 2009.

The relief that Petitioner requested in his habeas petition,

i.e., his release from continued and potentially indefinite

detention, can no longer be granted by the Court. Therefore,

this habeas action, alleging his continued detention violates

federal law and his constitutional rights, is moot. See Abdala

v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that

“there must be some remaining ‘collateral consequence’ that may

Case 2:09-cv-01558-GMS Document 17 Filed 03/05/10 Page 2 of 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

-3-

be redressed by success on the petition” in order for a habeas

to continue); Picrin-Peron, 930 F.2d at 775; Ferry v. Gonzales,

457 F.3d 1117, 1132 (10th Cir. 2006); Soliman v. United States,

296 F.3d 1237, 1243 (11th Cir. 2002).

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is moot because

the petition challenges only the legitimacy of Petitioner’s

continued detention and Petitioner has now been deported;

accordingly, there is no existing case or controversy over which

this Court may exercise jurisdiction.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Mr. Antonnio’s

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed with prejudice

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.

Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the

date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to

file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter,

the parties have fourteen (14) days within which to file a

response to the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, Local Rules

of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the

District of Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation

may not exceed seventeen (17) pages in length. 

Case 2:09-cv-01558-GMS Document 17 Filed 03/05/10 Page 3 of 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

-4-

Failure to timely file objections to any factual or

legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered

a waiver of a party’s right to de novo appellate consideration

of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Failure to timely file

objections to any factual or legal determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver of a party’s right to

appellate review of the findings of fact and conclusions of law

in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge. 

DATED this 3rd day of March, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01558-GMS Document 17 Filed 03/05/10 Page 4 of 4