Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02192/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02192-0/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 

TO THE HONORABLE JAMES A. TEILBORG, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 Petitioner Richard Clifford Lazar (A034-391-652), while confined in the Pinal 

County Jail in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a 

Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody on October 28, 2013. (Doc. 1.) In 

the petition, Petitioner alleges that immigration officials are holding him in detention 

pending his removal to Pakistan. He argues that he is entitled to 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) 

(when there is no reasonable likelihood that a foreign government will accept an alien’s 

return in the reasonably foreseeable future, the INS may not detain the alien for more 

than the presumptively reasonable period of six months); Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 

(2005) (extending the holding in Zadvydas to inadmissible aliens). 

 On January 14, 2014, Respondent filed a Notice to Court and Suggestion of 

Richard Clifford Lazar, 

 

 Petitioner, 

vs. 

Jon Gurule, 

 Respondent. 

 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-13-02192-PHX-JAT (SPL)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAT Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 1 of 3
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 

Mootness (Doc. 9), in which he submits that Petitioner has been removed from the United 

States pursuant to an immigration judge’s order of removal. Attached to the notice, 

Respondent provides a copy of a Warrant of Removal/Deportation, which indicates that 

Petitioner was removed to Pakistan on January 10, 2014. (Doc. 9-1.) 1 

 The Court lacks jurisdiction to review moot issues. Gator.com Corp. v. L.L. Bean, 

Inc., 398 F.3d 1125, 1128 (9th Cir. 2005) (“It is an inexorable command of the United 

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

controversies.”). The test for mootness is whether the court can give a party any effective 

relief in the event that it decides the matter on the merits in its favor; “[t]hat is, whether 

the court can ‘undo’ the effects of the alleged wrongdoing.” Reimers v. Oregon, 863 F.2d 

630, 632 (9th Cir. 1989). 

 Here, in his habeas corpus petition, Petitioner “challenge[s] only the length of his 

detention, as distinguished from the lawfulness of the deportation order...” Abdala v. 

INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007). It is not evident that Petitioner’s removal gives 

“rise to collateral consequences that are redressable by success on his original petition.” 

Abdala, 488 F.3d at 1065. “His petition [i]s thus rendered moot by his removal.” Id. at 

1062. The relief he requests can no longer be effected by the Court, and no “case or 

controversy” under Article III of the United States Constitution remains. See PicrinPeron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 1991) (finding that because the petitioner 

only requested a release from custody and had been released the court could provide no 

further relief and the petition was properly dismissed). Therefore, the Court recommends 

that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed as moot. Accordingly, 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED without prejudice. 

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 

 

1

 On January 13, 2014, mail sent to Petitioner by the Clerk of Court was also returned as undeliverable. (Doc. 7.) 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAT Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 2 of 3
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 

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

parties shall have 14 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(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have 14 days within which to file 

a response to the objections. 

 Failure to timely 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. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely 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 of judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s 

recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

 Dated this 21st day of January, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-02192-JAT Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 3 of 3