Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00713/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00713-1/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ali Partovi, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Eric Holder, et al., 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV09-0713-PHX-SRB

ORDER

On April 6, 2009, Petitioner filed his Second Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his continued detention since his last Writ of

Habeas Corpus was denied in 2004. The Respondents have responded in opposition and

Petitioner filed a reply.

The facts surrounding Petitioner’s continued detention are set forth in detail in the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation dated May 4, 2010. It is apparent that the

Petitioner’s continued detention is entirely his fault. He admits both in his reply and in his

response and objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation that he has

and will continue to refuse to cooperate with deportation or to sign any travel documents.

When the Supreme Court found that a six-month period of detention after a final order

of removal is presumptively reasonable and following this period an alien may only continue

to be confined “until it has been determined that there is no significant likelihood of removal

Case 2:09-cv-00713-SRB Document 34 Filed 06/18/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001). 8 U.S.C.

§ 1231(a)(1)(C) also permits continued detention when an alien fails or refuses to cooperate

in good faith with completing applications for travel or other documents necessary to effect

his removal. Admittedly, Petitioner falls into this category. More perplexing however is the

Petitioner’s refusal to sign two release orders that have been offered to him over the past

several years. In March 2007, Petitioner was offered release under an order of supervision

that he refused to sign. In May 2009 after filing his habeas petition Petitioner was again

offered release under an order of supervision and he refused to sign again. Under these

circumstances Petitioner cannot claim that his continued detention is unreasonable or that he

is entitled to habeas relief. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Petitioner’s

continued detention is a direct result of his long-standing failure to cooperate with or assist

in his removal or to sign the necessary documents to be released under supervision until such

time as his removal can be effected. 

IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner’s objection to the Report and

Recommendation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge as the order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is

denied and dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed

in forma pauperis on appeal is denied because Petitioner has not made substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right.

DATED this 17th day of June, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00713-SRB Document 34 Filed 06/18/10 Page 2 of 2