Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00762/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00762-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Victor Ramos, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Katrina Kane, ICE, Department of

Homeland Security, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 08-0762-PHX-MHM (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE MARY H. MURGUIA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Victor Ramos filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on April 23, 2008, contending

that his continued detention while his removal proceedings are pending is unlawful (Doc.

#1). On August 18, 2008, Respondent Katrina Kane filed a Motion to Hold Proceedings in

Abeyance Pending Extrajudical Resolution Efforts (Doc. #9). On October 17, Kane moved

to withdraw the earlier motion, informing the Court that following remand from the Ninth

Circuit, the Bureau of Immigration Appeals terminated Ramos’s removal proceedings and

he was released from detention (Doc. #10). Kane argues that because Ramos is no longer

subject to detention, his petition should be dismissed as moot (Id.).

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Victor Ramos’s petition for writ of

habeas corpus be dismissed as moot (Doc. #1).

IT IS ORDERED granting Kane’s Motion to withdraw the earlier Motion to Hold

Proceedings in Abeyance (Doc. ##9, 10).

Case 2:08-cv-00762-MHM Document 11 Filed 10/21/08 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 -

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); Rules

72, 6(a), 6(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within

which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to 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. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to 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 or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 21st day of October, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00762-MHM Document 11 Filed 10/21/08 Page 2 of 2