Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02259/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02259-0/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

Nhat Phan,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Katrina S. Kane,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-2259-PHX-NVW (LOA)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On November 17, 2011, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, doc. 1, asserting that his continued detention by the

Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is unlawful. Petitioner seeks either removal

or release from custody on an order of supervision. On January 30, 2012, Respondent

filed a Notice of Mootness asserting that this matter is moot because Petitioner has been

released from custody on an order of supervision. (Doc. 12) Petitioner has not replied.

I. Background

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Vietnam. (Doc. 1 at 11) Petitioner entered the

United States on October 26, 2001 at Los Angeles as a lawful permanent resident. (Doc.

1 at 13) On September 23, 2008, Petitioner was convicted in the State of California for

Commercial Burglary and Identity Theft and was sentenced to two years imprisonment.

(Id.) On June 3, 2011, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) commenced

removal proceedings against Petitioner. Petitioner was ordered removed to Vietnam. 

(Id.) 

Case 2:11-cv-02259-NVW Document 14 Filed 03/05/12 Page 1 of 4
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 -

Thereafter, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with this Court

asserting that his continued detention is unlawful. Petitioner seeks immediate release

from custody. 

II. Analysis

As previously stated, Petitioner seeks release from custody on the ground that his

continued detention by DHS is unlawful. (Doc. 1) After filing his Petition, on or about

January 3, 2012, Petitioner was released from custody under an order of supervision.

(Doc. 12 at 4) Indeed, on January 13, 2012, the Court received returned mail addressed to

Petitioner marked “undeliverable, not in custody.” (Doc. 10) Petitioner has not notified

the Court of his current address. Because Petitioner has been released from custody on an

order of supervision, he has been awarded the relief he was seeking in his § 2241 petition.

“Article III of the Constitution limits federal ‘Judicial Power,’ that is, federal-court

jurisdiction, to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” U.S. Parole Commission v. Geraghty, 445

U.S. 388, 395 (1980); see also PUC v. FERC, 100 F.3d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir. 1996). An

actual case or controversy must exist at all stages of judicial review. Ortez v. Chandler,

845 F.2d 573, 574-575 (5th Cir. 1988) (holding that no case or controversy existed where

movant, who challenged his bond determination, had been deported because the relief he

requested — reduction of his bond — could no longer be effected.) This limitation

restricts the jurisdiction of the federal courts to cases where there is a possible judicial

resolution. Geraghty, 445 U.S. at 395. This Court lacks jurisdiction to review moot

issues. Gator.com Corp. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 398 F.3d 1125, 1128-29 (9th Cir. 2005)

(stating that “[i]t is an inexorable command of the United States Constitution that the

federal courts confine themselves to deciding actual cases and controversies.”). A moot

action is not subject to a judicial resolution. An action is moot when the parties lack a

legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Sample v. Johnson, 771 F.2d 1335, 1338 (9th

Cir. 1985). 

Here, Petitioner challenges his detention by DHS and seeks either removal “or

Case 2:11-cv-02259-NVW Document 14 Filed 03/05/12 Page 2 of 4
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 -

release . . .on an order of supervision.” (Doc. 1 at 9) In view of Petitioner’s release from

custody on an order of supervision, the relief he requests — “release . . .on or order of

supervision” — can no longer be effected. (Doc. 1 at 9) Therefore, no “case or

controversy” remains and the Petition is moot. Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 776

(9th Cir. 1991) (finding that because petitioner only requested release from custody and

had been released, the court could provide no further relief and the petition was properly

dismissed.); American Rivers v. National Marine Fisheries Services, 126 F.3d 1118, 1123

(9th Cir. 1997) (stating that “[a] claim is moot if it has lost its character as a present, live

controversy.”) (citation omitted); Xie v. Schiltgen, No. C 99-4150 VRW, 2001 WL

637409, * 1 (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2001) (finding petition for writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2241 moot where petitioner has been released from INS custody after posting

bond). But see Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting, in dictum, that

habeas petitioner’s release from detention did not render moot his claims for injunctive

and declaratory relief. Rather, a controversy existed because petitioner retained a

personal stake in determination of claims on behalf of himself and class of aliens detained

during immigration proceedings for more than six months without bond hearing, because

petitioner’s release pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 241.4 was subject to restrictions and to 

discretionary revocation without hearing before neutral decision-maker and without

burden of justification on government.).

Alternatively, this matter is subject to dismissal based on Petitioner’s failure to

notify the Court of his current address. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); LRCiv 83.3(d). 

In view of the foregoing,

IT IS RECOMMENDED Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc.

1) be DENIED as moot. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED, in the alternative, that the Petition be

dismissed based on Petitioner’s failure to comply with Court orders pursuant to

Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). 

Case 2:11-cv-02259-NVW Document 14 Filed 03/05/12 Page 3 of 4
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 -

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be DENIED.

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 fourteen 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); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties

have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to 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

timely to 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 or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge=s recommendation. See Rule

72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 5th day of March, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-02259-NVW Document 14 Filed 03/05/12 Page 4 of 4