Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00357/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00357-2/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

---

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 Although the docket reflects that Respondent also filed a motion to dismiss on June 19, 2007, Respondent 1

inadvertently failed to attach the proper motion. (Court Doc. 10.)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILSON ALBERTO URREGO,

Petitioner,

v.

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, et.al.,

Respondents.

 /

1:07-cv-00357 OWW DLB (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS PETITION AS MOOT

[Doc. 11]

Petitioner is detained by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“BICE”)

and is proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on March 5, 2007. (Court

Doc.) On May 3, 2007, the Court issued an order to show cause why the petition should not be

granted. (Court Doc. 9.)

On July 9, 2007, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot. (Court Doc. 1

11.) Petitioner has not filed an opposition.

Respondent has submitted that Petitioner was released from custody on an order of

supervision on June 19, 2007. (Attachment A, Release Notification, to Motion.) 

Because Petitioner has been released on an order of supervision, and is no longer in

detention, his habeas petition challenging the length of his confinement is moot, and the petition

Case 1:07-cv-00357-OWW -DLB Document 12 Filed 08/22/07 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

should be dismissed. Cf. Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773 (9 Cir. 1991) (habeas petition th

dismissed as moot because INS Director had released (paroled) alien petitioner).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s motion to dismiss the

instant petition as MOOT be GRANTED.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of

the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with

the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 20, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00357-OWW -DLB Document 12 Filed 08/22/07 Page 2 of 2