Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02126/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02126-1/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

Petr Mikhaylovich Meltser, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Katrina Kane, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-2126-PHX-MHM (ECV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE MARY H. MURGUIA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

On November 18, 2008, Petitioner Petr Mikhaylovich Meltser 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 Ukraine, but that

his removal is not reasonably foreseeable. Doc. #1. Petitioner seeks an immediate release

under supervision 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 January 20, 2009, the District Judge reviewed the petition and directed

Respondent to file an answer. Doc. #3.

 

Case 2:08-cv-02126-MHM Document 8 Filed 02/18/09 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 February 11, 2009, Respondent filed a Suggestion of Mootness in which she

asserts that Petitioner was released under an Order of Supervision on December 31, 2008.

Doc. #7. In the filing, Respondent provides a copy of the Release Notification and Order of

Supervision establishing that Petitioner was released from custody on that date. Doc. #7.

Because Respondent's evidence demonstrates that Petitioner has obtained the relief he sought

in his petition, this action is moot. See Picrin-Peron 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-02126-MHM Document 8 Filed 02/18/09 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 17th day of February, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-02126-MHM Document 8 Filed 02/18/09 Page 3 of 3