Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00398/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00398-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Respondent
Carmelo Rodriguez Zaya
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARMELO RODRIGUEZ ZAYA,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-01-0398 FCD GGH P

vs.

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

SERVICE, et al.,

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is proceeding through counsel with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner challenges his indefinite detention in the custody of the

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). On March 27, 2002, the court dismissed the

petition. On April 8, 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded this

matter. In its order, the Ninth Circuit cited Clark v. Martinez, 125 S.Ct. 716 (2005) (holding that

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) bars the indefinite detention of inadmissible aliens

under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6)).

On April 13, 2005, the court ordered petitioner to inform the court of the status of

his detention. On May 16, 2005, petitioner filed a response to the April 13, 2005, order. 

\\\\\

Case 2:01-cv-00398-FCD-GGH Document 20 Filed 08/08/05 Page 1 of 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

2

Petitioner states that he was released from Bureau of Prisons custody on his own recognizance on

September 3, 2004.

On June 15, 2005, the court ordered petitioner to show cause within ten days why

this action should not be dismissed because he has already received the relief sought in this

action. Petitioner did not respond to the June 15, 2005, order. Accordingly, because petitioner

has been released from detention, and received the relief sought, the court recommends that this

action be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 8/8/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

zay398.dis

Case 2:01-cv-00398-FCD-GGH Document 20 Filed 08/08/05 Page 2 of 2