Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02077/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02077-0/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

Auda Shilakeh Al Mansuri, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2077-PHX-FJM (ECV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE FREDERICK J. MARTONE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT

JUDGE:

On August 29, 2006, Petitioner Auda Shilakeh Al Mansuri filed a pro se Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 alleging that his continued detention

by immigration officials is unlawful. Doc. #1. Petitioner was taken into custody by the

Department of Homeland Security and placed in removal proceedings on December 27,

2005. Petitioner contends, however, that on February 2, 2006, Respondent filed a motion to

dismiss Petitioner's removal proceedings, which was granted by the Immigration Judge.

Petitioner claims that as a result, no removal proceedings are pending against him and he

should be released. The District Court reviewed the petition and directed Respondent to file

an answer. Doc. #4.

Case 2:06-cv-02077-FJM Document 12 Filed 04/10/07 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 23, 2006, Respondent filed a Response in Opposition to Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus. Doc. #10. Respondent explains that although Petitioner's initial removal

proceedings were dismissed in February 2006 as Petitioner asserts, Respondent again

charged Petitioner with removability on August 24, 2006. Doc. #10 at 4. At the time

Respondent filed its Response in Opposition, Petitioner's removal proceedings were still

pending. Doc. #10 at 5. Accordingly, Respondent asked that the underlying petition seeking

release be denied as premature. Id. Petitioner did not file a Reply.

On February 15, 2007, Respondent filed a "Suggestion of Mootness" in which it

contends that Petitioner was released on February 14, 2007, under an Order of Supervision.

Doc. #11. In the filing, Respondent provides documentation establishing that on November

6, 2006, Petitioner was ordered removed, but that Immigration and Customs Enforcement has

been unable to remove him from the United States. Doc. #11, Exh. A. As a result, he has

been released from custody pending his removal. Id. Because Respondent's evidence

demonstrates that Petitioner has obtained the relief he sought in his petition, this action is

moot. 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.

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

Case 2:06-cv-02077-FJM Document 12 Filed 04/10/07 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 -

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 10th day of April, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02077-FJM Document 12 Filed 04/10/07 Page 3 of 3