Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01708/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01708-0/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

Artem Akopovich Alabilikyan, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Katrina Kane, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-1708-PHX-JAT (ECV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE JAMES A. TEILBORG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

On September 15, 2008, Petitioner Artem Akopovich Alabilikyan filed a pro se

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 alleging that immigration

officials are holding him in detention pending his removal from the United States to Russia,

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 October 21, 2008, the District Judge reviewed the petition and directed

Respondent to file an answer. Doc. #3.

 

Case 2:08-cv-01708-JAT Document 13 Filed 11/19/08 Page 1 of 3
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 October 30, 2008, Respondent filed a Notice of Suggestion of Mootness in which

she asserts that Petitioner was released under an Order of Supervision on October 29, 2008.

Doc. #10. In the filing, Respondent provides a copy of the Order of Supervision establishing

that Petitioner was released from custody on that date. Doc. #10, Exh. A. Petitioner has not

responded to the suggestion of mootness. Because Respondent's evidence demonstrates that

Petitioner has obtained the relief he sought in his petition, this action is moot. See PicrinPeron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 775 (9th Cir. 1991) (alien’s habeas petition challenging the

length of his detention pending deportation was rendered moot when petitioner was released

from custody and reparoled into the United States). 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

///

///

///

Case 2:08-cv-01708-JAT Document 13 Filed 11/19/08 Page 2 of 3
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 -

findings of fact in an order of judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s

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

DATED this 19th day of November, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-01708-JAT Document 13 Filed 11/19/08 Page 3 of 3