Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02473/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02473-0/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

That Rouen,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Katrina Kane, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV 07-2473-PHX-EHC (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE EARL H. CARROLL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

That Rouen filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on

December 5, 2007, contending that immigration officials are holding him in detention

pending his removal to Cambodia, but that his removal has not been effected. He argues that

he is entitled to immediate release from custody because his detention with no prospect that

his removal will be effected in the reasonably foreseeable future is not authorized by law.

See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). On January 25, 2008, Respondent Katrina

Kane filed a Response and Suggestion of Mootness, arguing that because Rouen has been

released by immigration officials under an Order of Supervision, his petition should be

dismissed as moot (Doc. #4).

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Petitioner That Rouen’s petition for

writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as moot (Doc. #1).

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

Case 2:07-cv-02473-EHC Document 5 Filed 01/29/08 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 -

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The

parties shall have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules

72, 6(a), 6(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within

which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate

Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and

Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any factual

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to

appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 28th day of January, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02473-EHC Document 5 Filed 01/29/08 Page 2 of 2