Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00717/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00717-0/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

Subsequent to the filing of the Petition, Petitioner's counsel filed a Motion to

Withdraw as counsel of record due to her "interim suspension from the Arizona State Bar."

(April 18, 2005). On May 2, 2005, the Court granted counsel's Motion to Withdraw and

permitted substitution of Petitioner's current counsel in her stead. (April 28, 2005 and May

9, 2005 Orders)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Edwin Daniels, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

John Ashcroft; et. al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-717-PHX-MHM (HCE)

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

On April 12, 2004 Petitioner, through counsel,1

 filed the instant "Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus With a Stay of Deportation" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pursuant to the

Rules of Practice of this Court, this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Nancy Fiora.

On July 9, 2005, this matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in light of

Magistrate Judge Fiora's retirement.

On August 14, 2006, Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss as Moot. For the following

reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court grant Petitioner's Motion.

I. DISCUSSION

When Petitioner, who is a native and citizen of Liberia, filed his Petition, he was in

the physical custody of the Department of Homeland Security (hereinafter "DHS"). The

Court ordered that Respondents were prohibited from removing Petitioner until after the

Court resolved the underlying Petition. (See April 13, 2004, April 26, 2004, and May 11,

2004 Orders) On May 12, 2004, Petitioner filed a Notice informing the Court that he had

Case 2:04-cv-00717-MHM-HCE Document 27 Filed 09/27/06 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

filed a Motion to Re-Open with the Immigration Court in Atlanta, Georgia. A March 2, 2005

status report filed by Petitioner's then counsel indicated that the Motion to Re-Open remained

pending before the Immigration Court and that Petitioner was no longer being detained.

(Plaintiff's March 2, 2005 Status Update)

On August 14, 2006, in response to the Court's Order for, inter alia, a status report,

Petitioner, through current counsel, filed the instant Motion to Dismiss as Moot. Petitioner

states that the this action is moot given that he is no longer in DHS custody and he is no

longer under an immediate threat of removal from the United States. Petitioner also asserts

that "any further relief from removal" that he may seek "is through the DHS or the

appropriate immigration court with any necessary appeals to the Board of Immigration

Appeals, and finally to the appropriate Circuit Court of Appeals, as prescribed under the

Code of Federal Regulation [sic] and 8 U.S.C. § 1252." (Petitioner's August 14, 2006 Brief

Addressing Issues in Court's June 13, 2006 Order and Motion to Dismiss as Moot, p.2)

Therefore, "Petitioner withdraws his Petition as being moot and requests that the Court order

dismissal of this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure." (Id. at p.3) (footnote omitted) The record reflects that Respondents have not

opposed Petitioner's Motion. 

Rule 41(a)(2) provides in "...an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance

save upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems

proper....Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph is without

prejudice." Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2). Additionally, Local Rule 7.2(i) of the Rules of Practice

of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona provides that the Court may deem a

party's failure to respond to a motion as that party's "consent to the...granting of the motion

and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily." On the instant record, Petitioner's

Motion should be granted given (1) Petitioner's conclusion that the issues raised in the

Petition are moot and/or are more appropriately addressed through the DHS, the immigration

Case 2:04-cv-00717-MHM-HCE Document 27 Filed 09/27/06 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

court, and subsequent appellate process pursuant to applicable immigration statutes and

regulations; and (2) Respondents' failure to oppose such Motion.

II. RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court

grant Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 26) and enter an order dismissing this action

without prejudice.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(B), any party may serve and file written objections within

ten days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. If objections

are filed, the parties should use the following case number: CV 04-717-PHX-MHM.

If objections are not timely filed, then the parties' right to de novo review by the

District Court may be deemed waived. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003).

The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this Report and Recommendation to

the parties and/or their counsel.

DATED this 26th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-00717-MHM-HCE Document 27 Filed 09/27/06 Page 3 of 3