Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00032/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00032-0/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

Abdulla Qasem Muthana,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Katrina S. Kane, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV-12-0032-PHX-PGR (MHB)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

Petitioner Abdulla Qasem Muthana (A041-982-561), who is confined in the Eloy

Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). Petitioner alleges that immigration officials are

holding him in detention pending his removal to Yemen. Petitioner argues that he is entitled

to release from custody because his detention with no prospect that his removal will be

effected in the reasonably foreseeable future is not authorized by law. 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); see

also Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005) (extending the holding in Zadvydas to

inadmissible aliens).

The docket reflecting that Petitioner is no longer in custody (Doc. 6), and it appearing

that there is no longer a live case or controversy in this matter, the Court required Petitioner

to show cause why this action should not be dismissed as moot. Petitioner has not responded

Case 2:12-cv-00032-PGR Document 11 Filed 03/27/12 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 -

or otherwise communicated with the Court. In addition, on March 14, 2012, Respondent

filed a Notice and Suggestion of Mootness with the Court demonstrating that Petitioner was

removed from the United States on February 27, 2012, pursuant to the Government’s Order

of Removal.

Accordingly, in light of Petitioner’s removal and it appearing that no case or

controversy remains, the Court will recommend that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus be dismissed as moot.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED as moot and 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 fourteen 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(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen

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.

Reyna-Tapia, 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 26th day of March, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-00032-PGR Document 11 Filed 03/27/12 Page 2 of 2