Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01388/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01388-0/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

MAHAHMADOU TOURE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIV 07-01388 PHX NVW (MEA)

) 

KATRINA KANE, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

) 

Respondent. )

______________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE NEIL V. WAKE:

Mr. Mahahmadou Toure (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition

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

2241 on July 20, 2007, asserting his continued detention by

Respondent pending his removal to Mali violated United States

law and his constitutional rights. At that time, Petitioner was

confined in Respondent’s custody in Eloy, Arizona. Respondent

filed a Suggestion of Mootness September 28,, 2007, asserting

the petition for relief is now moot because Petitioner has been

released from detention and placed on an Order of Supervision.

See Docket No. 10.

1. Procedural History

On November 6, 2006, an Immigration Judge ordered

Petitioner be removed to Mali. See Petition at 4. Petitioner

has not sought further review of the order of removal. Id.

Petitioner was taken into custody on October 17, 2006. Id. The

Case 2:07-cv-01388-NVW Document 11 Filed 10/23/07 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-

only relief sought in the habeas petition was Petitioner’s

release from custody pending his removal from the United States.

See id. Petitioner asserted he has no criminal history and that

his removal was not reasonably likely in the foreseeable future.

Id. 

In her suggestion of mootness, Respondent avers that

Petitioner was released from detention on or about September 20,

2007, under an Order of Supervision. See Docket No. 10, Attach.

2. Analysis

Respondent presents evidence to the Court that

Petitioner has been released from detention. Because the

petition for habeas relief attacks only Petitioner’s continued

detention, the petition is now moot. 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 the case is moot. See Picrin-Peron v. Rison,

930 F.2d 773, 775 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Petitioner was released from detention approximately

two months after he filed his federal habeas petition. 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

Case 2:07-cv-01388-NVW Document 11 Filed 10/23/07 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-

and his constitutional rights, is moot. See Abdala v. I.N.S.,

488 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2007); Ferry v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d

1117, 1132 (10th Cir. 2006); Soliman v. United States, 296 F.3d

1237, 1243 (11th Cir. 2002).

3. Conclusion

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 released from

detention. There is no existing case or controversy over which

this Court may exercise jurisdiction and, therefore, this case

is moot.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Mr. Toure’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 ten (10) 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 ten (10) days within which to file a response to

the objections. 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,

Case 2:07-cv-01388-NVW Document 11 Filed 10/23/07 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-

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 22nd day of October, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01388-NVW Document 11 Filed 10/23/07 Page 4 of 4