Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01148/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01148-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Philip Crawford
Respondent
Veniamin Pavlovich Mikhov
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

 VENIAMIN PAVLOVICH MIKHOV,

Petitioner, 

vs.

PHILIP CRAWFORD, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1148-PHX-PGR (CRP)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

On June 11, 2007, Veniamin Mikhov (“Petitioner”) filed a pro se Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Habeas Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc 1).

At the time, Petitioner was confined at the Immigration Detention Center in Eloy,

Arizona awaiting removal to Ukraine. Petitioner argued he was being held

indefinitely in violation of United States law. On July 11, 2007, Petitioner was

released from confinement on an Order of Supervision. (Doc 12). After Petitioner’s

release, Respondent filed a status report arguing the Habeas Petition is now moot.

(Doc. 11).

Procedural History

On November 27, 2006, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed to

Ukraine as a result of his recent criminal conviction for burglary. (Doc 1). After

being held for over six months, on June 11, 2007, Petitioner filed the Habeas Petition

pending before this Court. (Doc 1). Petitioner sought relief from his continued

detention arguing there was no prospect that his removal to Ukraine would be effected

Case 2:07-cv-01148-PGR Document 13 Filed 11/01/07 Page 1 of 3
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-

in the reasonably foreseeable future. (Doc 1). On July 11, 2007, Petitioner was

released on an Order of Supervision. (Doc 12, Attachment 1). In a Status Report

filed September 4, 2007, Respondent argues the Habeas Petition is now moot because

Petitioner has received the relief sought in the Habeas Petition. (Doc 11). Petitioner

has not filed a Response to the Status Report Suggesting Mootness and the time for

filing such a response has passed.

Analysis

Article III of the United States Constitution empowers federal courts to

adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies. Deakins v. Monaghan, 484

U.S. 193, 199 (1988). It is insufficient that the case-or-controversy requirement is

satisfied when the suit is filed, the requirement “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, 477-478

(1990) (internal quotations omitted.) Furthermore, if it appears that the Court is

without the power to grant the relief requested by a habeas petitioner, then that case

is moot. Picrin-Person v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 775-776 (9th Cir. 1991). 

In the case before this Court, Petitioner challenges only the legitimacy of his

continued detention and seeks, as his sole request, relief from it. As Respondent

points out, Petitioner is no longer in custody; he was released on an Order of

Supervision on July 11, 2007. Petitioner, therefore, no longer has a personal stake in

the outcome of this lawsuit. Additionally, the relief Petitioner requested, his release

from continued and potentially indefinite detention, can no longer be granted by the

Court. For these reasons, this case is moot. 

Recommendation

After careful consideration of the Complaint and all papers filed in this action,

the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court dismiss this Habeas Petition

Case 2:07-cv-01148-PGR Document 13 Filed 11/01/07 Page 2 of 3
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 -3-

as moot. When Petitioner was released from detention it rendered his Habeas Petition

moot.

Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), any party may serve and file written

objections within 10 days of being served with a copy of this Report and

Recommendation. If objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived.

If objections are filed, the parties should use the following case number: cv 07-

1148-PHX-PGR.

DATED this 1st day of November, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01148-PGR Document 13 Filed 11/01/07 Page 3 of 3