Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01581/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01581-0/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

Sarob Sim, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Alberto Gonzales, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1581-PHX-SRB (ECV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

On August 14, 2007, Petitioner Sarob Sim 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 Cambodia, but that his removal

cannot be effected. Doc. #1. Petitioner seeks an immediate release from custody on the

ground 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 October 16,

2007, the Honorable Susan R. Bolton reviewed the petition and directed Respondent to file

an answer. Doc. #3.

 

Case 2:07-cv-01581-SRB Document 7 Filed 03/19/08 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 November 7, 2007, in lieu of an answer, Respondent filed a "Notice of Release

and Suggestion of Mootness" in which he contends that Petitioner received a Release

Notification indicating he would be released under an Order of Supervision. Respondent

further states that he would file the Order of Supervision upon receiving it. The Order of

Supervision has not been filed, but Petitioner has not filed anything to suggest he was not

released. Based on the Release Notification, the court will assume the release was executed.

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

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

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 

///

///

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-01581-SRB Document 7 Filed 03/19/08 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 18th day of March, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01581-SRB Document 7 Filed 03/19/08 Page 3 of 3