Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00265/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00265-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Philip Crawford
Respondent
Evens Thermitus
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

Evens Thermitus,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Philip Crawford, ICE Field Office

Director, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-0265-PHX-SMM (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN M. MCNAMEE, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:

Evens Thermitus filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on January 23, 2006,

contending that immigration officials are holding him in detention pending his removal to

Haiti, but that his removal cannot be effect ed. See Doc. #1. 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 May 5, 2006, the Government filed a

Suggestion of Mootness, attaching a Release Notification, which indicates that Thermitus

has been approved for release under an Order of Supervision. See Doc. #12. On May 8,

2006, the Court ordered Thermitus t o show cause within 20 days why his petition for writ

of habeas corp us should not be dismissed as moot. See Doc. #13. On May 15, 2006, a

copy of the Court 's M ay 8 Order was returned as undeliverable, and remailed to the new

address as shown on the docket. See Doc. #14. On May 22, it was again returned as

undeliverable, indicating that Thermitus was not longer at the facility. See Doc. #15. 

Case 2:06-cv-00265-SMM Document 18 Filed 05/31/06 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 -

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Evens Thermitus' Pet ition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED AS MOOT (Doc. #1). 

T his 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

parties shall have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation

within which to file specific written objections with t he 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 t o file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in t he 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 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 30th day of May, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00265-SMM Document 18 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 2