Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01019/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01019-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jon Gurule
Respondent
Wanna Win
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 

JKM 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Wanna Win, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Jon Gurule, 

Respondent. 

No. CV 13-1019-PHX-DGC (MHB) 

ORDER 

Petitioner Wanna Win (A073-219-873) has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking his immediate release from custody 

on the grounds that his detention with no prospect that his removal would be effected in 

the reasonably foreseeable future was not authorized by law. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 

U.S. 678 (2001) (when there is no reasonable likelihood that a foreign government will 

accept an alien’s return in the reasonably foreseeable future, the INS may not detain the 

alien for more than the presumptively reasonable period of six months). 

On May 23, 2013, mail sent to Petitioner by the Clerk of Court was returned as 

undeliverable. (Doc. 3.) Additionally, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

online Detainee Locator, https://locator.ice.gov/odls/homePage.do, indicates that 

Petitioner is no longer in ICE custody. A habeas corpus petition filed by a petitioner who 

“challenge[s] only the length of his detention, as distinguished from the lawfulness of the 

deportation order, . . . . [is] rendered moot by his removal.” Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 

1061, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007). Similarly, a habeas corpus “petitioner’s release from 

Case 2:13-cv-01019-DGC--MHB Document 4 Filed 05/29/13 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

detention under an order of supervision ‘moots his challenge to the legality of his 

extended detention.’” Id. at1064 (quoting Riley v. INS, 310 F.3d 1253, 1256-57 (10th 

Cir. 2002). Because Petitioner has not filed a notice of change of address, an order to 

show cause why this action should not be dismissed as moot would be futile. See Carey 

v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (“An order to show cause why dismissal is 

not warranted or an order imposing sanctions would only find itself taking a round trip 

tour through the United States mail.”). Accordingly, this action will be dismissed as 

moot. 

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition (Doc. 1) and this action are dismissed as moot. 

The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. 

Dated this 29th day of May, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-01019-DGC--MHB Document 4 Filed 05/29/13 Page 2 of 2