Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02087/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02087-0/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

1

 Also pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Voss’ Report and

Recommendation (doc. #16) wherein he recommended that the habeas petition

be denied on the ground that the petitioner’s continued detention was not

improper because the petitioner had not shown that there was no reasonable

likelihood of his removal in the foreseeable future. Given the petitioner’s

subsequent release from custody, the Report and Recommendation is now moot

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Qin Huang,

Petitioner,

vs.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-2087-PHX-PGR (ECV)

 

 ORDER

Pending before the Court is the petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, wherein the sole relief he seeks is his

release from immigration detention pending his removal to the People’s Republic

of China. On November 11, 2009, the respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss

(doc. #20), wherein they argue that this action should be dismissed for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction because the petition became moot when the petitioner

was released from immigration detention on July 8, 2009 on an order of

supervision.1

 On November 18, 2009, the Court entered an order (doc. #21) that

Case 2:08-cv-02087-PGR Document 22 Filed 01/05/10 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 and the Court will not address it any further.

- 2 -

required the petitioner to file his response, if any, to the motion to dismiss no later

than December 17, 2009; the petitioner was advised in that order that his failure

to file a timely response would result in the dismissal if this action. A review of

the record establishes that the petitioner has to date failed to object to the motion

to dismiss and is thus deemed to have consented to the granting of the motion. 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (doc. #20) is

granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) and LRCiv 7.2(i) and that the petitioner’s

Application for Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is denied

and that this action is dismissed. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 5th day of January, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-02087-PGR Document 22 Filed 01/05/10 Page 2 of 2