Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05166/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05166-0/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

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARDEEP SINGH, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

IMMIGRATION AND )

NATURALIZATION SERVICE )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 02-5166 AWI WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

DISMISSAL OF PETITION AS

MOOT

Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

This case has a lengthy procedural history, which is set forth in the court’s prior

orders. The most important points are that Petitioner has been released from custody, the

court denied Respondent’s motion to dismiss for mootness based on Petitioner’s release in its

order of March 31, 2003, and the court denied Petitioner’s motion to vacate the bond

requirement in its order of May 29, 2003.

Case 1:02-cv-05166-AWI-WMW Document 42 Filed 01/03/07 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 denying Respondent’s motion to dismiss for mootness on March 31, 2003, the

court relied on the existence of the bond as a collateral consequence imposed on Petitioner. 

However, the court subsequently denied Petitioner’s motion to vacate the bond requirement.

Therefore, it appears that this petition has become moot, because no further relief can be

granted to Petitioner. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this petition for writ

of habeas corpus be DISMISSED AS MOOT.

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by

mail) after service of the objections. The court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05166-AWI-WMW Document 42 Filed 01/03/07 Page 2 of 2