Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00238/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00238-0/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

Peter Mwasokwa, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Alberto Gonzales, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-0238-PHX-SMM (ECV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN M. MCNAMEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT

JUDGE:

On January 19, 2006, Petitioner Peter Mwasokwa filed a pro se Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 alleging that immigration officials were holding

him in detention pending his removal from the United States, 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). The District Court reviewed the petition

and directed Respondent to file an answer. Doc. #4.

Case 2:06-cv-00238-SMM Document 12 Filed 11/29/06 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 April 3, 2006, Respondent filed a Response in Opposition to Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus. Doc. #9. Respondent's evidence shows that Petitioner is a native and citizen

of Tanzania, who was admitted into the United States on September 5, 2000, in New York

City as a non-immigrant visitor for pleasure with authorization to remain in the United States

until no later than March 4, 2001. An immigration judge later ordered Petitioner to be

removed after he remained in the United States beyond the authorized time period. Petitioner

failed to report for his removal but came into the custody of the Department of Homeland

Security (DHS) on May 27, 2005. Respondent reports that on March 20, 2006, the State

Department became involved in the efforts to obtain travel documents to effect Petitioner's

removal. Respondent states that Petitioner's file was to be reviewed by the State Department

on April 4, 2006. 

On November 27, 2006, Respondent filed a "Suggestion of Mootness" in which he

contends that DHS released Petitioner on an Order of Supervision back on April 6, 2006. In

the filing, Respondent provides documentation establishing that Petitioner was released from

custody on that date. In addition, Respondent states that a copy of the Order of Supervision

has been requested and will be filed with the court upon receipt. Because Respondent's

evidence demonstrates that Petitioner has obtained the relief that he sought in his petition,

this action is moot. The court will therefore recommend that the Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus be dismissed.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-00238-SMM Document 12 Filed 11/29/06 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 -

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED:

That Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #1) be DISMISSED.

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

findings of fact in an order of judgement entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's

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

DATED this 29th day of November, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00238-SMM Document 12 Filed 11/29/06 Page 3 of 3