Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01186/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01186-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mahahmadou Diarra
Petitioner
Alberto Gonzales
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

MAHAHMADOU DIARRA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIV 07-01186 PHX PGR (MEA)

) 

ALBERTO GONZALES, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

) 

Respondent. )

______________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE PAUL G. ROSENBLATT:

Mr. Mahahmadou Diarra (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2241 on June

15, 2007, asserting his continued detention by Respondent

pending his removal to Mali violated United States law and his

constitutional rights. At that time, Petitioner was confined at

the Immigration Service Processing Center in Florence, Arizona.

Respondent filed a Suggestion of Mootness on July 24, 2007,

asserting the petition for relief is now moot because Petitioner

has been released from detention and placed on an Order of

Supervision. See Docket No. 5.

1. Procedural History

On November 27, 2006, an Immigration Judge ordered

Petitioner be removed to Mali. See Petition, Attach. In his

habeas petition Petitioner seeks relief in the form of his

release pending his removal from the United States. See id. In

Case 2:07-cv-01186-PGR Document 7 Filed 07/26/07 Page 1 of 4
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-

his suggestion of mootness, Respondent avers that Petitioner was

released from detention on July 23, 2007, under an Order of

Supervision. See Docket No. 5, Exh. 1. 

2. Analysis

Respondent presents evidence to the Court that

Petitioner was released from detention. Because the petition

for habeas relief attacks only Petitioner’s continued detention

the petition is moot. The case-or-controversy requirement of

Article III, § 2, of the United States Constitution “subsists

through all stages of federal judicial proceedings ... The

parties must continue to have a personal stake in the outcome of

the lawsuit.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472,

477-78, 110 S. Ct. 1249, 1253-54 (1990) (internal quotations

omitted). If it appears that the Court is without the power to

grant the relief requested by a habeas petitioner, then that

case is moot. See Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 775 (9th

Cir. 1991). 

Petitioner was released from detention approximately

five weeks after he filed his federal habeas petition. The

relief that Petitioner requested in his habeas petition, i.e.,

his release from continued and potentially indefinite detention,

can no longer be granted by the Court. Therefore, this habeas

action, alleging his continued detention violates federal law

and his constitutional rights, is moot. See Picrin-Peron, 930

F.2d at 775; Soliman v. United States, 296 F.3d 1237, 1243 (11th

Cir. 2002); Riley v. INS, 310 F.3d 1253, 1257 (10th Cir. 2002)

(holding that a petitioner’s release moots their habeas petition

challenging the legality of extended detention); Watson v. INS,

Case 2:07-cv-01186-PGR Document 7 Filed 07/26/07 Page 2 of 4
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

1 More recent unpublished opinions also support this conclusion. See,

e.g., Adelabu v. Gonzales, 166 Fed. App. 275, 276 (9th Cir. 2006); Davis.

v. Gonzales, 128 Fed. App. 410 (5th Cir. 2005).

-3-

271 F. Supp. 2d 838, 840 (E.D. Va. 2003); Camara v. Comfort, 235

F. Supp. 2d 1174, 1176 (D. Colo. 2002). Cf. Spencer v. Kemna,

523 U.S. 1, 8-16, 118 S. Ct. 978, 983-87 (1988) (finding moot a

habeas petition challenging parole revocation procedures after

the petitioner was released from prison); Fendler v. United

States Bureau of Prisons, 846 F.2d 550, 555 (9th Cir. 1988)

(holding that a section 2241 petition becomes moot once the

petitioner, seeking release from parole rather than challenging

the validity of his original conviction, is released from

parole). 

In accordance with the published opinions cited supra,

the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined

that an immigration detainee’s release from detention moots a

habeas petition asserting only that the detainee’s continued

detention violates United States law. See Fakic v. Sonchik, 35

Fed. App. 674, 2002 WL 1060247, at *1 (9th Cir.); Masters v.

Shiltgen, 28 Fed. App. 712, 714, 2002 WL 104927, at *2 (9th

Cir.); Loredo-Corrales v. Higgins, 132 F.3d 39 (Table), 1997 WL

787196, at *1 (9th Cir.).1 

3. Conclusion

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is moot because

the petition challenges only the legitimacy of Petitioner’s

continued detention and Petitioner has now been released from

detention. There is no existing case or controversy over which

Case 2:07-cv-01186-PGR Document 7 Filed 07/26/07 Page 3 of 4
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

-4-

this Court may exercise jurisdiction and, therefore, this case

is moot.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Mr. Diarra’s Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed with prejudice as moot.

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.

Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of

service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file

specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the

parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to

the objections. Failure to timely file objections to any

factual or legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be

considered a waiver of a party’s right to de novo appellate

consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Failure to

timely file objections to any factual or legal determinations of

the Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver of a party’s right

to appellate review of the findings of fact and conclusions of

law in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

DATED this 25th day of July, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01186-PGR Document 7 Filed 07/26/07 Page 4 of 4