Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01114/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01114-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Fajugon Hurguilla
Petitioner
Katrina Kaine
Respondent

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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jose Fajugon Hurguilla, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Katrina Kaine, ICE Field Office Director,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 07-1114-PHX-NVW (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE NEIL V. WAKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Jose Fajugon Hurguilla filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241, contending that immigration officials are holding him in detention pending his

removal to Colombia, but that his removal cannot be effected. Hurguilla argues that he is

entitled to immediate release from custody because his indefinite detention with no prospect

that his removal will be effected in the reasonably foreseeable future is not authorized by

law. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). In its Response, the Government attached

a Release Notification sent to Hurguilla on July 6, 2007, and contends that this case is now

moot. See Document 14, Exh 1.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Jose Fajugon Hurguilla’s petition for

writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED AS MOOT (Doc. #1).

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

Case 2:07-cv-01114-NVW Document 16 Filed 07/10/07 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

27

28 - 2 -

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); Rules

72, 6(a), 6(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within

which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to 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. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to 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 or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 10th day of July, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01114-NVW Document 16 Filed 07/10/07 Page 2 of 2