Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02522/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02522-1/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

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOANG MONG LE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2522 LKK DAD P

vs.

JOHN ASHCROFT, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, who is represented by counsel, filed an amended application for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On February 28, 2005, respondents filed a

motion to dismiss the amended petition as moot. Respondents contend that petitioner was

released and is no longer in the custody of the Bureau of U.S. Immigration and Customs

Enforcement. On May 19, 2005, petitioner’s counsel filed a response to the court’s order to

show cause and indicates there is no opposition to respondents’ motion to dismiss. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Respondents’ February 28, 2005 motion to dismiss be granted; and 

2. This action be dismissed as moot.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

Case 2:04-cv-02522-LKK -DAD Document 17 Filed 05/27/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 27, 2005.

DAD:4

le2522.157

Case 2:04-cv-02522-LKK -DAD Document 17 Filed 05/27/05 Page 2 of 2