Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02815/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02815-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 25:640 Indian Tribal Rights

---

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 1 The Court notes this matter was initially assigned to Judge Sedwick

and was reassigned to Judge Campbell, who recused himself from the matter

on January 22, 2007.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

ANDREN JOSEPH FISHER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIV 06-02815 PHX ROS MEA

)

HONORABLE NEIL FLORES, et al., ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

) 

Respondents. )

_____________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE ROSLYN O. SILVER:

On November 22, 2006, Petitioner, through counsel,

filed a petition seeking his release from the custody of the

Colorado River Indian Tribes. On January 3, 2007, Respondents

filed a response ("Response") to the petition. See Docket No.

13. On January 14, 2007, Petitioner filed a traverse to the

response. See Docket No. 18 ("Reply"). Additionally, before

the Court are Respondents’ motion for judgment on the pleadings,

filed January 19, 2007, and Petitioner’s motion to dismiss this

action, also filed January 19, 2007. See Docket No. 20 & Docket

No. 21 & Docket No. 22.1 Respondents oppose the motion to

dismiss. See Docket No. 24 & Docket No. 25. Petitioner has not

responded to the motion for judgment on the pleadings. 

Case 2:06-cv-02815-ROS Document 27 Filed 01/26/07 Page 1 of 6
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 The prayer for relief stated in the petition states:

[P]etitioner prays that the court grant Petitioner [] relief from

cruel and unusual punishment through the denial fo the right to

bail under the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1302(7) and

1303; Tribal Constitution; Tribal Code; and the Rules of Criminal

Procedure for the Tribal Court; and to set Petitioner [] free

pending the proceedings in the Tribal Court.

-2-

Procedural history

On August 27, 2006, Petitioner, was arrested by the

Colorado River Indian Tribes (“CRIT”), a federally-recognized

Native American nation. Petition at 2. Petitioner, an enrolled

member of the CRIT, was arraigned by the tribal court on August

28, 2006, and ordered held without bail. Id. at 3; Response,

Exh. G. A hearing by the tribal court was conducted on

September 6, 2006, at which time Petitioner was ordered held

pending his trial without bail. See Petition. On October 12,

2006, the tribal court denied Petitioner’s request for release

on bond. Id. at 4. On November 20, 2006, at a hearing before

the tribal court, Petitioner’s counsel moved the tribal court to

set bail. Id. Petitioner’s motion for bail was denied. Id.

On November 22, 2006, Petitioner, through counsel,

filed a motion in federal court seeking a writ of habeas corpus

ordering his release from his detention by the CRIT.2

Respondents assert Petitioner was released from custody on his

own recognizance on December 27, 2006. Response at 2 & Exh. A.

Respondents further allege Petitioner was not entitled to bail

and that Petitioner was properly denied bail. Id. at 2.

Respondents contend the petition is moot because the relief

requested in the petition has been effectuated by the tribal

Case 2:06-cv-02815-ROS Document 27 Filed 01/26/07 Page 2 of 6
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 Respondents also correctly argue Respondents Eric Shepard and

Geoffrey Helfer never had custody of Petitioner and, therefore, are not

appropriate respondents. See, e.g., Smith v. Idaho, 392 F.3d 350, 354-55

(9th Cir. 2004). Respondents further asked the Court to award them the

costs of suit. Response at 4.

-3-

court. Id. at 3.3

Petitioner filed a reply to the response on January 13,

2007, acknowledging Petitioner had been released from custody.

Reply at 2. Petitioner noted the tribal government’s January 8,

2007, motion to dismiss the charges against him without

prejudice had been granted. Id. In the reply Petitioner

further asserts he was not a flight risk, that the tribal court

should have set bond if he were a flight risk, that he “suffered

under a pretrial detention,” and that he was subject to release

conditions “from December 27, 2006 forward,” and that a hearing

will be held in the future to determine if the tribal charges

against him may be dismissed with prejudice. Id. Petitioner

states “a viable claim existed until the matter was dismissed

releasing [Petitioner] from all release conditions on January 8,

2007.” Id. Petitioner averred: “Petitioner deems the matter of

[his] Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus moot as of January 8,

2007. However, Counsel does request any relief this court deems

just in bringing this action; [and] the costs and legal fees

associated with this petition...” Id.

Analysis

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over a

petition for federal habeas relief seeking the petitioner’s

release from the detention of a Native American tribal

government, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and 25 U.S.C. § 1303.

Case 2:06-cv-02815-ROS Document 27 Filed 01/26/07 Page 3 of 6
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-

Section 2241 confers on the United States District Courts the

power to grant a writ of habeas corpus to individuals “in

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of

the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) (2006). The Indian

Civil Rights Act (“ICRA”), codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1303,

provides: “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall be

available to any person, in a court of the United States, to

test the legality of his detention by order of an Indian tribe.”

25 U.S.C. § 1303 (2001 & Supp. 2006). See also Settler v.

Lameer, 419 F.2d 1311, 1312 (9th Cir. 1969).

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 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). 

Therefore, because the only relief sought by Petitioner

was his release from detention and Petitioner has been released

from detention, as acknowledged by Petitioner, the petition is

moot. See id., 930 F.2d at 775; Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d

996, 1001 (9th Cir. 2005); Soliman v. United States, 296 F.3d

1237, 1243 (11th Cir. 2002); Riley v. INS, 310 F.3d 1253, 1257

(10th Cir. 2002) (holding that a petitioner’s release moots

their habeas petition challenging the legality of extended

Case 2:06-cv-02815-ROS Document 27 Filed 01/26/07 Page 4 of 6
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-

detention); Watson v. INS, 271 F. Supp. 2d 838, 840 (E.D. Va.

2003); Camara v. Comfort, 235 F. Supp. 2d 1174, 1176 (D. Colo.

2002). Cf. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 8-16, 118 S. Ct. 978,

983-87 (1988) (finding moot a habeas petition challenging parole

revocation procedures after the petitioner was released from

prison); Fendler v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 846 F.2d

550, 555 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that a section 2241 petition

becomes moot once the petitioner, seeking release from parole

rather than challenging the validity of his original conviction,

is released from parole). 

Conclusion

The petition for federal habeas relief, which seeks as

legitimate relief only Petitioner’s release from custody, is now

moot because Petitioner was released from custody on December

27, 2006. Accordingly, the petition must be denied and

dismissed with prejudice. Because the relief sought may not be

awarded by the Court, the motions to dismiss this matter on the

pleadings and Petitioner’s “motion” to dismiss the petition

should be denied as moot. To the extent counsel for either

party seeks an award of fees, and to the extent Petitioner’s

counsel suggests the Court convert this matter, sua sponte, into

a section 1983 action, this relief should be denied. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Mr. Fisher’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

Case 2:06-cv-02815-ROS Document 27 Filed 01/26/07 Page 5 of 6
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

-6-

appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district

court’s judgment. 

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 25th day of January, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02815-ROS Document 27 Filed 01/26/07 Page 6 of 6