Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01288/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01288-0/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

MICHAEL PETGRAVE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIV 07-01288 PHX JWS (MEA)

) 

KATRINA KANE, BRUNO STOLC, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

) 

Respondents. )

______________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE JOHN W. SEDWICK:

Mr. Michael Petgrave (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition

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

2241 on July 2, 2007, asserting his continued detention by

Respondent pending his removal to Jamaica 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 September 21, 2007, asserting the

petition for relief is now moot because Petitioner has been

released from detention and removed to Jamaica. See Docket No.

11. On October 1, 2007, Respondents filed a notice that

Petitioner had been removed to Jamaica. Docket No. 12.

1. Procedural History

In 2006 an Immigration Judge ordered Petitioner be

removed to Jamaica. See Petition at 2. Petitioner appealed

this decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which denied

Case 2:07-cv-01288-JWS Document 13 Filed 10/23/07 Page 1 of 4
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-

relief from removal on or about February 26, 2007. Id.

Petitioner was taken into custody September 5, 2006. Id. The

only relief sought in the habeas petition was Petitioner’s

release from detention pending his removal from the United

States. See id. 

In their suggestion of mootness, Respondents aver that

Petitioner was released from detention and removed from the

United States or about September 7, 2007. See Docket No. 11 &

Docket No. 12.

2. Analysis

Respondents present evidence to the Court that

Petitioner was released from detention and removed from the

United States. 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). 

Petitioner was released from detention and removed from

the United States approximately two months 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

Case 2:07-cv-01288-JWS Document 13 Filed 10/23/07 Page 2 of 4
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-

the Court. Therefore, this habeas action, alleging his

continued detention violates federal law and his constitutional

rights, is moot. See 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).

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. Petgrave’s

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

Case 2:07-cv-01288-JWS Document 13 Filed 10/23/07 Page 3 of 4
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-

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 22nd day of October, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01288-JWS Document 13 Filed 10/23/07 Page 4 of 4