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

Subhi Mohammed Dajani,

Petitioner,

v. 

Albert Carter, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-15-02578-PHX-DLR (ESW)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

On December 18, 2015, Subhi Mohammed Dajani (“Petitioner”) filed a pro se 

Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (the “Petition”) (Doc. 1). 

Petitioner states that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) has 

detained him since August 2012 pending deportation to Israel pursuant to a final removal 

order. (Id. at 4). Petitioner challenges the legality of his extended detention pending 

removal. 

“A petitioner’s release from detention under an order of supervision moot[s] his 

challenge to the legality of his extended detention.” Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 

1064 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). On June 24, 2016, 

Respondents filed a “Notice to the Court and Suggestion of Mootness” (Doc. 9). The 

Notice indicates that on June 22, 2016, Petitioner was released from ICE custody and 

placed under an Order of Supervision. (Doc. 9-1 at 2). In a December 22, 2015 Order, 

the Court ordered Petitioner to file and serve a notice of change of address, warning 

Case 2:15-cv-02578-DLR Document 12 Filed 08/04/16 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 

Petitioner that “[f]ailure to comply may result in dismissal of this action.” (Doc. 3 at 3). 

Despite release from custody, Petitioner has not yet filed a notice of change of address. 

In a June 28, 2016 Order (Doc. 10), the Court required Petitioner to respond to the 

Notice (Doc. 9) by July 12, 2016. The Order stated that the Court would deem 

Petitioner’s failure to respond as consent to the dismissal of the Petition. The Order was 

mailed to Petitioner and returned to the Court as undeliverable with no forwarding 

information provided. (Doc. 11). Petitioner has not responded to the Notice. In light of 

Respondents’ Notice (Doc. 9) indicating that Petitioner has been released from detention 

and Petitioner’s failure to respond and file a notice of change of address, 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Petition (Doc. 1) 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 4th day of August, 2016. 

- 2 - 

Case 2:15-cv-02578-DLR Document 12 Filed 08/04/16 Page 2 of 2