Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01641/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01641-0/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

RUN FENG ZHEN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIV 07-01641 PHX EHC (MEA)

) 

KATRINA KANE, BRUNO STOLC, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

) 

Respondents. )

______________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE EARL H. CARROLL:

Mr. Run Feng Zhen (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2241

on August 24, 2007, asserting his continued detention by

Respondent pending his removal to China violated United States

law and his constitutional rights. At that time, Petitioner was

confined in Respondents’ custody at the INS Processing Center in

Florence, Arizona. Respondents filed a Response in Opposition

to Petition for Writ of Habeas (Docket No. 9) on November 15,

2007, and also filed a Suggestion of Mootness on November 29,

2007, asserting the petition for relief is now moot because

Petitioner has been released from detention. See Docket No. 10.

1. Procedural History

Petitioner is a native and citizen of China. Answer,

Exh. 1. Petitioner entered the United States as a legal

immigrant on or about September 21, 1989. Id., Exh. 2. On or

Case 2:07-cv-01641-EHC Document 11 Filed 12/20/07 Page 1 of 5
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-

about November 21, 2006, the Department of Homeland Security

issued a Notice to Appear, charging Petitioner was removable

from the United States. Id., Exh. 4. The Notice to Appear

alleged Petitioner was an alien who had been convicted of an

aggravated felony as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. XXXX

(a)(43)(F), i.e., Petitioner was convicted of a crime of

violence for which the term of imprisonment imposed was at least

one year. Id., Exh. 4. 

After a hearing before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), the

IJ sustained the allegations in the Notice to Appear and found

Petitioner was removable. Id., Exh. 6 & Exh. 7. On or about

February 21, 2007, the IJ ordered Petitioner be removed from the

United States to China. id., Exh. 6. Petitioner sought relief

from removal and a waiver of removability on various grounds,

which were denied. Id., Exh. 6 & Exh. 7. Petitioner did not

appeal the order of removal or the denial of relief from

removal. See Petition, Attach.

On or about February 28, 2007, the Department of

Homeland Security sought travel documents for Petitioner from

the People’s Republic of China. Answer, Exh. 8. On or about

March 28, 2007, the People’s Republic of China requested that

Petitioner be released from custody on humanitarian grounds.

Id., Exh. 9. The request was denied on or about August 20,

2007. See id., Exh. 15.

On or about June 25, 2007, Petitioner was notified that

a hearing regarding his continued custody by Respondents would

be conducted on July 22, 2007. Id., Exh. 13. Petitioner sought

an immediate review of his custody. Id., Exh. 14. On August

Case 2:07-cv-01641-EHC Document 11 Filed 12/20/07 Page 2 of 5
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-

20, 2007, Petitioner was notified that Respondents had decided

to continue detaining Petitioner. Id., Exh. 16. Petitioner

appealed the decision to continue his detention by filing a

Notice of Appeal with the Department of Homeland Security on

August 25, 2007. Id., Exh. 17.

In his habeas petition, Petitioner asserts his

detention beyond the six-month removal period stated by federal

statutes violates his federal rights. Petitioner also asserts

a double-jeopardy claim stated as a claim that his continued

detention constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, i.e.,

Petitioner asserts that he is again being punished for his state

crime in addition to having served a criminal sentence.

2. Analysis

Respondents present evidence to the Court that

Petitioner was released from detention under an order of

supervision and that Petitioner now resides with his father in

California. See Docket No. 10, Attach. The order of release

was signed by Petitioner on November 26, 2007. See id., Attach.

Petitioner was to appear before an ICE officer on December 4,

2007. See id., Attach. 

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

Case 2:07-cv-01641-EHC Document 11 Filed 12/20/07 Page 3 of 5
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-

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). 

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 the Court.

Therefore, this habeas action, alleging Petitioner’s 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. 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. Feng Zhen’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.

Case 2:07-cv-01641-EHC Document 11 Filed 12/20/07 Page 4 of 5
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

-5-

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

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 20th day of December, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01641-EHC Document 11 Filed 12/20/07 Page 5 of 5