Opinion
CV 18-01103-PHX-DGC (MHB)
12-28-2018
Joffry Akwey, Petitioner, v. Kirstjen Nielsen, et al., Respondents.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO THE HONORABLE DAVID G. CAMPBELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Petitioner Joffry Akwey, a noncitizen who is confined in the Eloy Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 1). In his Petition, Petitioner raises one ground for relief. He alleges that his order of removal became final on December 8, 2017, but that he remains detained with no reasonable likelihood that he will be removed in the foreseeable future, without being afforded a bond hearing, in violation of Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (six-month period of detention after order of removal becomes final is presumptively unreasonable).
On December 11, 2018, Respondents filed a status report and accompanying exhibits with the Court indicating that Petitioner was removed from the United States on November 27, 2018. (Doc. 16.) Respondents suggest that in light of Petitioner's removal, this case is moot, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus must be denied and dismissed.
The Court, having reviewed the record and it appearing that Petitioner is no longer in custody and that there is no longer a live case or controversy in this matter, ordered Petitioner to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed as moot. To date, Petitioner has not responded or otherwise communicated with the Court, and the time for filing a response to the Court's Order has expired.
Accordingly, it appearing that Petitioner has been removed, that there is no longer a live case or controversy in this matter, and that the habeas petition is now moot, the Court will recommend that Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED as moot and 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 Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 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); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file 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. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9 Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will 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 Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
DATED this 28 day of December, 2018.
/s/_________
Michelle H. Burns
United States Magistrate Judge