Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02475/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02475-2/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Thomas Dalmar, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Katrina Kane,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 07-2475-PHX-MHM (HCE)

ORDER

Petitioner has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

alleging that immigration officials are holding him in detention pending his removal to

Antigua and that his removal could not be effected. Therefore, Petitioner seeks immediate

release from custody on the grounds that his indefinite detention with no prospect of effecting

removal in the reasonably foreseeable future is unlawful. 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); Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 3712

(2005) (extending the holding in Zadvydas to inadmissible aliens).

The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Hector C. Estrada, who has issued a

Report and Recommendation that recommends dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus as moot (Doc. 12). Petitioner has not filed an objection to the Report and

Case 2:07-cv-02475-MHM Document 13 Filed 04/28/08 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 -

Recommendation. The district court must review the Magistrate Judge's findings and

recommendations de novo if objection is made but not otherwise. United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)("[a] judge

of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made"). 

On February 7, 2008, Respondent filed a “Suggestion of Mootness” indicating that

Petitioner was released from custody on an Order of Supervision on January 10, 2008. On

February 8, 2008, the Court gave Petitioner until February 27, 2008 to show good cause why

this case should not be dismissed as moot. Petitioner did not respond.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc.

12) in its entirety as the Order of the Court; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied

and dismissed with prejudice. 

 DATED this 25th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02475-MHM Document 13 Filed 04/28/08 Page 2 of 2