Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01354/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01354-1/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 

Arjan Singh, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Katrina S. Kane, et al, 

 Respondents.

No. CV-14-01354-PHX-SPL (BSB)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

 This matter is before the Court on its own review. On June 17, 2014, Petitioner 

commenced this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release from immigration 

detention, or, alternatively, a bond hearing. (Doc. 1.) The Court directed Respondents to 

answer the petition within twenty days of service. (Id.) See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(4) 

and 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

 After the deadline for filing an answer had passed, Respondents requested an 

extension of time to file an answer. (Doc. 13.) Respondents explained that it appeared 

the Petition was moot because Petitioner had decided to accept his final order of removal 

in the underlying immigration proceedings. (Id. at 2.) However, because Respondents’ 

counsel had been unable to contact Petitioner’s counsel to determine the status of the 

proceeding, Respondents requested an extension of time to file an answer. (Id.) 

Therefore, the Court extended the deadline for Respondents to answer the Petition to 

November 13, 2014. (Doc. 14.) 

Case 2:14-cv-01354-SPL Document 22 Filed 12/16/14 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

27 

28 

 After the November 13, 2014 deadline had passed without Respondents filing an 

answer, the Court ordered the parties to file, on or before December 2, 2014, a joint 

notice of the status of this § 2241 proceeding notifying the Court whether Petitioner 

intended to continue with, or voluntarily dismiss, this action. (Doc. 16.) 

 The parties did not file a joint status report. However, on December 1, 2014, 

Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss his case.1

 (Doc. 17.) That same day, Respondents 

filed a separate status report advising the Court that they do not oppose Petitioner’s 

motion to dismiss this action. (Doc. 18.) 

 After review of Petitioner’s unopposed motion to dismiss, the Court recommends 

that the motion to dismiss be granted. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS RECOMMENED that Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17) be 

GRANTED. 

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. Rule 4(a)(1) 

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); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

6, 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the 

objections. Failure to file timely 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 file timely objections to any factual determinations of 

the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of 

 

1

 At the time Petitioner filed his motion to dismiss, the Court’s docket reflected 

that Nic Boca was Petitioner’s counsel. However, Mr. Boca subsequently moved to withdraw as counsel and the Court granted that motion. (Docs. 20, 21.) Accordingly, the Court considers Petitioner’s motion to dismiss. 

Case 2:14-cv-01354-SPL Document 22 Filed 12/16/14 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s 

recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

 Dated this 16th day of December, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-01354-SPL Document 22 Filed 12/16/14 Page 3 of 3