Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01295/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01295-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Katrina Kaine
Respondent
Joaquin Perez Nunez
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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joaquin Perez Nunez, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Katrina Kaine, ICE Field Office Director,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 07-1295-PHX-PGR (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE PAUL G. ROSENBLATT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

On July 3, 2007, Joaquin Perez Nunez 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 the Dominican Republic, but that his removal cannot be

effected. He 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).

On August 13, 2007, the District Court ordered Respondent to answer the petition ( Doc. #3).

On August 20, 2007, a copy of the Court’s August 13 Order was returned as undeliverable,

with the notation “Unclaimed/Not in custody” (Doc. #7).

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Joaquin Perez Nunez’s petition for

writ of habeas corpus be DENIED and 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

Case 2:07-cv-01295-PGR Document 9 Filed 08/21/07 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 -

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); 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 21st day of August, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01295-PGR Document 9 Filed 08/21/07 Page 2 of 2