Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01252/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01252-0/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 

Daniel Aispuro, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Katrina S Kane, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-13-01252-PHX-PGR (BSB)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

 Petitioner Daniel Aispuro, through counsel, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his continued detention by the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) during removal proceedings. (Doc. 1.) 

Petitioner seeks a bond redetermination hearing. (Doc. 1 at 13-14.) Respondents filed a 

response and motion to stay asserting that the Petition is moot because a bond 

redetermination hearing was scheduled for September 2013. (Doc. 8 at 8.) The Court 

denied the motion to stay and directed Respondents to file a supplemental response. 

(Doc. 9.) The Court advised Petitioner that he could file a combined reply to the 

response and supplemental response. (Id. at 2.) 

 On October 21, 2013, Respondents filed a supplemental response arguing that the 

Petition is moot because a bond redetermination was held on September 25, 2013 and, 

therefore, Petitioner had been granted all of the relief he was seeking. (Doc. 13 at 2, 

Case 2:13-cv-01252-PGR Document 14 Filed 11/27/13 Page 1 of 6
- 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 

Ex. 1.) Petitioner has not filed a reply, and the time to do so has passed.1 For the reasons 

set forth below, the Petition should be denied as moot. 

I. Background 

 Petitioner Daniel Aispuro is a native and citizen of Mexico. Petitioner asserts that 

he was admitted to the United States with a nonimmigrant visa on or about September 1, 

1996 near Tecate, California. (Respondents’ Ex. A.)2

 On December 3, 2011, Petitioner 

came into DHS’s custody following his detention at the Pinal County Jail in Florence, 

Arizona. The DHS could not find any records of Petitioner’s claimed lawful entry. 

(Respondents’ Ex. B.) On December 5, 2011, DHS placed Petitioner in removal 

proceedings through the issuance of a Notice to Appear (NTA) charging him with 

inadmissibility pursuant to section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act (Act or INA), as an alien present in the United States who had not been admitted or 

paroled. (Respondents’ Ex. C.) 

 On December 16, 2011, the Immigration Judge ordered Petitioner released from 

custody under a $3,000.00 bond. (Respondents’ Ex. D.) On January 3, 2012, the 

Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s request for a “subsequent bond redetermination 

hearing.” (Respondents’ Ex. E.) On January 31, 2012, DHS filed a motion to 

administratively close removal proceedings because Petitioner had been transferred to the 

custody of another law enforcement agency. (Respondents’ Ex. F.) On February 1, 

2012, the Immigration Judge granted the motion to administratively close removal 

proceedings. (Respondents’ Exs. F, G.) 

 On March 20, 2012, Petitioner was convicted in the Superior Court of Arizona, 

Pinal County of possession of drug paraphernalia, a class six felony, in violation of 

 

1

 Although Petitioner did not file reply in this case, following the September 25, 2013 bond redetermination hearing, he commenced two separate § 2241 cases in this Court challenging his continued detention by the Department of Homeland. See

13cv1986-PGR (BSB) and 13cv2243-PHX-PGR (BSB). Plaintiff is represented by counsel in those cases. 

2

 Citations to “Respondents’ Ex.” are to the exhibits attached to Respondents’ Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, located at Doc. 8. 

Case 2:13-cv-01252-PGR Document 14 Filed 11/27/13 Page 2 of 6
- 3 - 

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 

Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-3415 (A), committed on December 1, 2011. The court 

sentenced Petitioner to eleven months’ imprisonment. (Respondents’ Ex. H.) 

 On September 14, 2012, Petitioner came into DHS’s custody following his 

incarceration on the state felony drug conviction. (Respondents’ Ex. I.) On September 

24, 2012, Petitioner filed a motion for a bond hearing. (Respondents’ Ex. J.) On October 

5, 2012, DHS filed a Form I-261, Additional Charges of Inadmissibility/Deportability, 

charging Petitioner with being inadmissible to the United States pursuant to section 

212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the Act, as an alien who has been convicted of “any law or 

regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled 

substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 

§ 802)).” (Respondents’ Ex. K.) On October 22, 2012, Petitioner appeared for a bond 

hearing. At that hearing, the Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s request for change in 

custody status on the ground that he was subject to mandatory detention “due to notice of 

criminal conviction.” (Respondents’ Ex. L.) 

 On December 3, 2012, Petitioner submitted evidence to DHS that he was admitted 

to the United States with a nonimmigrant visa on or about August 16, 1996. 

(Respondents’ Ex. M.) At a removal hearing on January 15, 2013, DHS filed a Form I261, Additional Charges of Inadmissibility/Deportability, charging Petitioner with being 

removable from the United States pursuant to section 237(a)(1)(B) of the Act, as an alien 

who after admission has remained in the United States longer than permitted, in violation 

of the Act, and pursuant to section 237(a)(2)(B)(i), as an alien who has been convicted of 

“any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a 

controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 

U.S.C. § 802)).” (Respondents’ Ex. N.) 

 At a removal hearing on February 27, 2013, the Immigration Judge sustained both 

charges of removability on the January 15, 2013 Form I-261, denied Petitioner’s 

application for voluntary departure, and ordered Petitioner removed to Mexico. 

(Respondents’ Exs. N, O.) On March 12, 2013, Petitioner filed an appeal with the Board 

Case 2:13-cv-01252-PGR Document 14 Filed 11/27/13 Page 3 of 6
- 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 

of lmmigration Appeals (BIA). On June 11, 2013, the BIA remanded Petitioner’s case to 

the Executive Office of Immigration Review due to an error with the transcript of the 

February 27, 2013, hearing. (Respondents’ Ex. Q.) On July 3, 2013, after locating the 

recording of the February 27, 2013 proceeding, the Immigration Judge recertified 

Petitioner’s order of removal to Mexico. Petitioner filed an appeal with the BIA on July 

9, 2013, and that appeal was pending when Petitioner filed the now pending Petition 

before this Court. (Respondents’ Exs. R, S.) 

 After Petitioner filed the pending Petition, the Immigration Judge held a bond 

redetermination hearing on September 25, 2013. (Doc. 13, Ex. 1.) The Immigration 

Judge denied Petitioner’s request for a change in custody status. (Id.) 

II. Analysis 

 Respondents argue that the Petition is moot because Petitioner has been afforded 

the relief he sought, a bond redetermination hearing. Petitioner has not filed a reply. As 

set forth below, the Petition in this case is moot and therefore, should be denied. 

 “Article III of the Constitution limits federal ‘Judicial Power,’ that is, federal-court 

jurisdiction, to hear ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 

U.S. 388, 395 (1980). An actual case or controversy must exist at all stages of judicial 

review. Ortez v. Chandler, 845 F.2d 573, 574-575 (5th Cir. 1988) (holding that no case 

or controversy existed when movant, who challenged his bond determination, had been 

deported because the relief he requested, reduction of his bond, could no longer be 

effected.) This limitation restricts the jurisdiction of the federal courts to cases on which 

there is a possible judicial resolution. Geraghty, 445 U.S. at 395. This Court lacks 

jurisdiction to review moot issues. Gator.com Corp. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 398 F.3d 1125, 

1128-29 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that “[i]t is an inexorable command of the United States 

Constitution that the federal courts confine themselves to deciding actual cases and 

controversies.”). An action is moot when the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in 

the outcome. Sample v. Johnson, 771 F.2d 1335, 1338 (9th Cir. 1985). 

Case 2:13-cv-01252-PGR Document 14 Filed 11/27/13 Page 4 of 6
- 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 

 Here, Petitioner challenges his continued detention by DHS and seeks a bond 

redetermination hearing. Because Petitioner has been afforded a bond redetermination 

hearing, the relief he requests can no longer be effected. Petitioner has not filed a reply 

and has not presented any arguments in this case that the bond redetermination hearing 

was inadequate. Therefore, no “case or controversy” remains and the Petition is moot. 

See Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 1991) (finding that because 

petitioner only requested release from custody and had been released, the court could 

provide no further relief and the petition was properly dismissed). 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS RECOMMENDED Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

(Doc. 1) be DENIED as moot. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be DENIED. 

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 4(a)(1), should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. The 

parties have fourteen 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); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 and 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within 

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

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the District Court’s 

acceptance of the Report and Recommendation without further review. See United States 

v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:13-cv-01252-PGR Document 14 Filed 11/27/13 Page 5 of 6
- 6 - 

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 

 Failure to file timely objections to any factual determination of the Magistrate 

Judge may 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

 Dated this 27th day of November, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-01252-PGR Document 14 Filed 11/27/13 Page 6 of 6