Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01592/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01592-1/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

ERIC JALLAYOU, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIV 09-01592 PHX MHM (MEA)

) 

JAMES KIMBLE, KATRINA KANE, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JANET NAPOLITANO, ERIC H. )

HOLDER, JR., )

) 

Respondents. )

______________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE MARY H. MURGUIA:

Mr. Eric Jallayou (“Petitioner”), who is represented by

counsel in this matter, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2241 on August 3,

2009, asserting his continued detention by Respondents pending

his removal from the United States violated United States law.

1. Procedural History

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Liberia. See

Docket No. 1. Petitioner entered the United States on or about

April 9, 2004. Id. Petitioner was taken into the custody of

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on or

about March 19, 2009. In his federal habeas petition,

Petitioner asserted his detention by ICE was in violation of

federal statutes and his rights pursuant to the United States

Constitution. The relief sought in the petition was

Case 2:09-cv-01592-MHM Document 17 Filed 08/31/09 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-

declaratory, i.e., that Petitioner’s detention was not

authorized, and Petitioner’s immediate release from custody.

Petitioner also filed a motion for preliminary

injunctive relief. See Docket No. 2. Petitioner also filed a

motion for joinder, a motion to consolidate cases, and an

amended motion to consolidate cases. See Docket No. 4, Docket

No. 9, Docket No. 10. On August 14, 2009, the Court denied the

motions for injunctive relief and to consolidate cases. 

Also on August 14, 2009, Petitioner filed a motion to

withdraw his petition for relief, averring to the Court that he

has been released from ICE custody and “therefore, his claim for

relief has been satisfied.” Docket No. 12.

2. Analysis

Petitioner avers he has been released from detention.

Because the petition for habeas relief attacks only Petitioner’s

continued detention, the petition is now moot. The

case-or-controversy requirement of Article III, § 2, of the

United States Constitution “subsists through all stages of

federal judicial proceedings ... The parties must continue to

have a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit.” Lewis v.

Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78, 110 S. Ct. 1249,

1253-54 (1990) (internal quotations omitted). If it appears

that the Court is without the power to grant the relief

requested by a habeas petitioner, then that case is moot. See

Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 775 (9th Cir. 1991). 

The relief that Petitioner requested in his habeas

petition, i.e., his release from continued detention, can no

longer be granted by the Court. Therefore, this habeas action,

Case 2:09-cv-01592-MHM Document 17 Filed 08/31/09 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-

alleging his continued detention violates federal law and his

constitutional rights, is moot. See Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d

1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2007); Picrin-Peron, 930 F.2d at 775; Ferry

v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 1117, 1132 (10th Cir. 2006); Soliman v.

United States, 296 F.3d 1237, 1243 (11th Cir. 2002).

3. Conclusion

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is moot because

the petition challenges only the legitimacy of Petitioner’s

continued detention and Petitioner has now been released from

detention. There is no existing case or controversy over which

this Court may exercise jurisdiction and, therefore, this case

is moot.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Mr. Jallayou’s motion

to withdraw his petition be granted and the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus be dismissed with prejudice as moot. 

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.

Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of

service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file

specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the

parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to

the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, Local Rules of Civil

Case 2:09-cv-01592-MHM Document 17 Filed 08/31/09 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-

Procedure for the United States District Court for the District

of Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation may not

exceed seventeen (17) pages in length. 

Failure to timely file objections to any factual or

legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered

a waiver of a party’s right to de novo appellate consideration

of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Failure to timely file

objections to any factual or legal determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver of a party’s right to

appellate review of the findings of fact and conclusions of law

in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge. 

DATED this 31st day of August, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01592-MHM Document 17 Filed 08/31/09 Page 4 of 4