Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01215/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01215-0/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

FERE HABTE ZEKARIAS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIV 08-01215 PHX JAT (MEA)

) 

KATRINA KANE, IMMIGRATION ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, )

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND )

SECURITY, ) 

) 

Respondents. )

______________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE JAMES A. TEILBORG:

Mr. Fere Zekarias (“Petitioner”), filed a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2241

on June 30, 2008, asserting his continued detention by

Respondents pending his removal from the United States violated

United States law and his constitutional rights. At that time,

Petitioner was confined in Respondents’ custody in Eloy,

Arizona. Respondents filed a Suggestion of Mootness on August

11, 2008, asserting the petition for relief is now moot because

Petitioner has been released from detention under an order of

supervision. See Docket No. 10. 

1. Procedural History

Petitioner asserts he was taken into ICE custody on

September 21, 2007, and ordered removed to Eritrea on November

Case 2:08-cv-01215-JAT Document 11 Filed 08/14/08 Page 1 of 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

-2-

29, 2007. See Petition at 8 & Docket No. 10, Attach. The

habeas petition was signed on June 16, 2008. See Petition.

In their suggestion of mootness, Respondents aver that

Petitioner was released from detention under an Order of

Supervision signed by Petitioner on June 27, 2008. See Docket

No. 10. The Order of Supervision indicates an address for

Petitioner in California. Id., Attach.

2. Analysis

Respondents present evidence to the Court that

Petitioner was released from detention. Because the petition

for habeas relief attacks only 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); Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir.

2007); 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).

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Mr. Zekarias’ 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

Case 2:08-cv-01215-JAT Document 11 Filed 08/14/08 Page 2 of 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

-3-

appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate

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 ten (10) 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 ten (10) 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. 

DATED this 13th day of August, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-01215-JAT Document 11 Filed 08/14/08 Page 3 of 3