Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00925/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00925-0/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

YARED TESSEMA, )

)

Petitioner, ) CIV 10-00925 PHX SRB MEA

)

v. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

)

KATRINA KANE, )

) 

Respondent. )

____________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON:

Mr. Yared Tessema (“Petitioner”) filed a pro se

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2241

on April 27, 2010. In the petition Mr. Tessema asserts his

detention by the Department of Homeland Security violates United

States statutes and his constitutional right to due process of

law.

Analysis

Petitioner is a native of Ethiopia. Petitioner was

taken into custody and placed in removal proceedings in April of

2009. In the habeas petition filed April 27, 2010, Petitioner

asserts only that his continued detention violated the doctrine

stated by the United States Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. Davis.

Respondent presents evidence to the Court that

Petitioner was removed from the United States on June 14, 2010.

Because the petition for habeas relief attacks only the

Case 2:10-cv-00925-SRB Document 11 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 5
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-

legitimacy of 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 that

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

Cir. 1991). 

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 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 United States Supreme Court has held that

speculation and conjecture of future improper conduct is

insufficient to defeat mootness, and that the “the injury or

threat of injury must be both real and immediate, not

conjectural or hypothetical.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461

U.S. 95, 101-02, 108-09, 103 S. Ct. 1660, 1664-65 (1983)

Case 2:10-cv-00925-SRB Document 11 Filed 07/14/10 Page 2 of 5
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-

(internal quotations omitted) (noting that the

“capable-of-repetition doctrine applies only in exceptional

situations, and generally only where the named plaintiff can

make a reasonable showing that he will again be subjected to the

alleged illegality”). 

Because Petitioner is no longer in detention his habeas

petition alleging that his previous detention was unauthorized

and unconstitutional is now moot. See Kaur v. Holder, 561 F.3d

957, 959 (9th Cir. 2009); Abdala, 488 F.3d at 1065; Qassam v.

Bush, 466 F.3d 1073, 1075 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (exception to

mootness for “voluntary cessation” does not apply where there is

no reasonable expectation that the alleged government conduct

will recur, and interim events have completely eradicated the

effects of the alleged violation).

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, i.e., Petitioner has been removed from the United

States. 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. Tessema’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

Case 2:10-cv-00925-SRB Document 11 Filed 07/14/10 Page 3 of 5
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-

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. 

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. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, R. 11, the District

Court must “issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it

enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” The undersigned

recommends that, should the Report and Recommendation be adopted

and, should Petitioner seek a certificate of appealability, a

certificate of appealability should be denied because Petitioner

has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

Case 2:10-cv-00925-SRB Document 11 Filed 07/14/10 Page 4 of 5
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

-5-

constitutional right as required by 28 U.S.C.A § 2253(c)(2).

DATED this 13th day of July, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00925-SRB Document 11 Filed 07/14/10 Page 5 of 5