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

Jesus Andres Martinez-Bujanda,

Petitioner,

v. 

Loretta Lynch, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-16-00075-PHX-JJT (ESW)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

TO THE HONORABLE JOHN J. TUCHI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Pending before the Court is Jesus Andres Martinez-Bujanda’s (“Petitioner”) 

“Motion to Dismiss Writ of Habeas Corpus as Moot” (Doc. 44). For the reasons 

explained herein, the undersigned recommends that the Court grant the Motion (Doc. 44).

Petitioner is a native citizen of Mexico. (Doc. 24-1 at 3). In 1976, Petitioner 

entered the United States without inspection. (Id. at 6). In 1992, following a second 

degree murder conviction, a California state court sentenced Petitioner to life without the 

possibility of parole.1

 (Id. at 8). 

On April 3, 2012, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) took custody of 

Petitioner after he was released from state prison. (Id. at 13). ICE initiated removal 

 

1 Respondents have provided a copy of an unsigned verdict form indicating that Petitioner was charged with first degree murder. (Doc. 24-1 at 10).
- 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

proceedings against Petitioner pursuant to Sections 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(l) and 212(a)(6)(A)(i) 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

2 (Doc. 24-1 at 13-15). Petitioner’s removal 

proceedings remain pending. (Doc. 43 at 1). 

In his Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the 

“Amended Petition”) (Doc. 17), Petitioner raises five claims challenging an Immigration 

Judge’s decision to deny Petitioner’s requested release on bond pending the completion 

of Petitioner’s removal proceedings. On April 12, 2017, Respondents filed a “Notice to 

the Court and Suggestion of Mootness” (Doc. 43). The Notice indicates that following a 

custody redetermination hearing, an Immigration Judge ordered that Petitioner be 

released from custody under a $20,000.00 bond. (Doc. 43-1 at 13). On April 7, 2017, 

Petitioner posted the bond and was released from custody. (Id. at 3-6, 7-11). Petitioner is 

subject to a number of conditions of release. (Id. at 7-11). In his April 19, 2017 Motion 

to Dismiss (Doc. 44 at 2), Petitioner states that “Petitioner has now been released from 

ICE’s custody, it is further requested that this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be 

dismissed as moot by this Honorable District Court and Judge.” 

In light of the evidence indicating that Petitioner has been released as requested in 

the Amended Petition (Doc. 17), the undersigned finds that there is no further relief that 

the Court can provide and the case is moot. See Ex parte Medley, 134 U.S. 160, 173 

(1890) (“[U]nder the writ of habeas corpus [courts] cannot do anything else than 

discharge the prisoner from the wrongful confinement . . . .”); Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 

F.2d 773, 775 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that petition for habeas corpus seeking release 

from allegedly unlawful, indefinite detention was moot where the government paroled the 

petitioner); see also Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that 

2 These provisions are codified at 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) and 

1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) provides that “[a]ny alien who is 

convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years (or 10 years 

in the case of an alien provided lawful permanent resident status under section 1255(j) of 

this title) after the date of admission” is deportable. 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) 

provides that “[a]ny alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after 

admission is deportable.” 
- 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 

habeas petition was moot where petitioner’s deportation “cur[ed] his complaints about 

the length of his INS detention”); Kittel v. Thomas, 620 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 

2010) (dismissing as moot a petition seeking early release where the petitioner was 

released and where there was no live, justiciable question on which the parties disagreed). 

Therefore,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court grant Petitioner’s “Motion to Dismiss 

Writ of Habeas Corpus as Moot” (Doc. 44). 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Amended Petition (Doc. 17) be 

dismissed without prejudice. 

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) 

should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. The parties shall have 

fourteen 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); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

6, 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the 

objections. Failure to file timely 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. Failure to file timely objections to any factual 

determinations of the Magistrate Judge may 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 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Dated this 24th day of April, 2017.