Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00928/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00928-0/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

MARCEL CATINAS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIV 06-0928 PHX SRB (SLV)

) 

ALBERTO GONZALES and )

PHILLIP CRAWFORD, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

) 

Respondents. )

______________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON:

Mr. Marcel Catinas (“Petitioner”), through counsel,

filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 2241 on March 31, 2006, asserting his continued

detention by Respondents pending his removal to Romania violated

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

Petitioner was confined at the Immigration Service Processing

Center in Florence, Arizona. Respondents filed a response to

the habeas petition on April 25, 2006, asserting the petition

for relief is now moot because Petitioner has been removed from

the United States.

1. Procedural History

On July 20, 1998, an Immigration Judge ordered

Petitioner be removed to Romania. See Petition at 4 & 8. In his

habeas petition Petitioner seeks relief in the form of an

Case 2:06-cv-00928-SRB Document 11 Filed 05/10/06 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-

individualized bond hearing or his release pending a change in

his immigration status or his removal from the United States.

See id. In their response to the petition and suggestion of

mootness, Respondents aver that Petitioner was removed from the

United States on April 10, 2006. See Docket No. 7, Exh. 1. 

2. Analysis

Respondents present evidence to the Court that

Petitioner was removed from the United States on April 10, 2006.

Because the petition for habeas relief attacks only Petitioner’s

release from detention the petition is 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). 

Petitioner was released from detention, i.e., removed

from the United States, approximately ten days after he filed

his federal habeas petition. 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 Picrin-Peron, 930 F.2d at

775; Soliman v. United States, 296 F.3d 1237, 1243 (11th Cir.

Case 2:06-cv-00928-SRB Document 11 Filed 05/10/06 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

1 More recent unpublished opinions also support this conclusion. See,

e.g., Adelabu v. Gonzales, 166 Fed. App. 275, 276 (9th Cir. 2006); Davis.

v. Gonzales, 128 Fed. App. 410 (5th Cir. 2005).

-3-

2002); Riley v. INS, 310 F.3d 1253, 1257 (10th Cir. 2002)

(holding that a petitioner’s release moots their habeas petition

challenging the legality of extended detention); Watson v. INS,

271 F. Supp. 2d 838, 840 (E.D. Va. 2003); Camara v. Comfort, 235

F. Supp. 2d 1174, 1176 (D. Colo. 2002). Cf. Spencer v. Kemna,

523 U.S. 1, 8-16, 118 S. Ct. 978, 983-87 (1988) (finding moot a

habeas petition challenging parole revocation procedures after

the petitioner was released from prison); Fendler v. United

States Bureau of Prisons, 846 F.2d 550, 555 (9th Cir. 1988)

(holding that a section 2241 petition becomes moot once the

petitioner, seeking release from parole rather than challenging

the validity of his original conviction, is released from

parole). 

In accordance with the published opinions cited supra,

the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined

that an immigration detainee’s release from detention moots a

habeas petition asserting only that the detainee’s continued

detention violates United States law. See Fakic v. Sonchik, 35

Fed. App. 674, 2002 WL 1060247, at *1 (9th Cir.); Masters v.

Shiltgen, 28 Fed. App. 712, 714, 2002 WL 104927, at *2 (9th

Cir.); Loredo-Corrales v. Higgins, 132 F.3d 39 (Table), 1997 WL

787196, at *1 (9th Cir.).1 

Case 2:06-cv-00928-SRB Document 11 Filed 05/10/06 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-

3. 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., 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. Catinas’ 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

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. 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

Case 2:06-cv-00928-SRB Document 11 Filed 05/10/06 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-

law in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

DATED this 10th day of May, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00928-SRB Document 11 Filed 05/10/06 Page 5 of 5