Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00705/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00705-0/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

Tariq Rafati, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Phillip Crawford, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0705-PHX-PGR (ECV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE PAUL G. ROSENBLATT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

On April 5, 2007, Petitioner Tariq Rafati filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 alleging that immigration officials were holding him

in detention pending his removal from the United States to Israel, but that his removal cannot

be effected. Doc. #1. Petitioner seeks an immediate release from custody on the grounds

that his indefinite detention is not authorized by law because there is no prospect that he will

be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. 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). In an order filed on May 4, 2007,

the District Judge reviewed the petition and directed Respondent to file an answer. Doc. #3.

 

Case 2:07-cv-00705-PGR Document 10 Filed 06/12/07 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 -

On May 22, 2007, Respondent filed a "Suggestion of Mootness" in which he contends

that Petitioner was released under an Order of Supervision on May 21, 2007. In the filing,

Respondent provides a copy of the Order of Supervision establishing that Petitioner was

released from custody on that date. Because Respondent's evidence demonstrates that

Petitioner has obtained the relief that he sought in his petition, this action is moot. The court

will therefore recommend that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED:

That Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (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

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

parties shall have ten 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 ten 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 judgement entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's

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

DATED this 12th day of June, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00705-PGR Document 10 Filed 06/12/07 Page 2 of 2