Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00754/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00754-1/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 (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

Hussam Khaled Abu Alata Mahod, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Phillip Crawford and Thomas Long, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-0754-PHX-MHM (ECV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

On March 10, 2005, Petitioner Hussam Khaled Abu Alata Mahod 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 to Jordan,

but that his removal could not be effected. 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);

Marquez v. INS, 346 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2003) (the post-IIRIRA presumptive

six-month limit on the detention of admitted aliens ordered deported, and inadmissible aliens

ordered removed, also applies to aliens ordered excluded under pre-IIRIRA law).

Case 2:05-cv-00754-MHM Document 16 Filed 02/27/06 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 July 26, 2005, Respondents filed a Response in Opposition to Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus (Doc. #10). They argue in their response that Zadvydas does not apply here

because travel papers have been issued and Petitioner will soon be removed. The next day,

on July 27, 2005, Respondents filed a Notice of Intent to Remove (Doc. #11) in which they

informed the court of their intent to remove Petitioner to Jordan on August 2, 2005. When,

after several months, Respondents did not provide evidence to the court that Petitioner was

actually removed, the court ordered them to submit such evidence or otherwise inform the

court of Petitioner's status. On February 17, 2006, Respondents filed a Notice of Filing of

Executed Warrant of Removal (Doc. #15) to which they attach a Warrant of

Removal/Deportation showing Petitioner was removed on August 2, 2005. Respondent's

evidence demonstrates that Petitioner has been deported and is no longer in custody. As a

result, the issue of indefinite detention no longer exists and this action is moot. The court

will therefore recommend that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00754-MHM Document 16 Filed 02/27/06 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 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 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 27th day of February, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-00754-MHM Document 16 Filed 02/27/06 Page 3 of 3