Opinion
Case No. 5:19-cv-01778-RGK (GJS)
01-14-2020
MARIO DUSSTIN RAMOS NAVAS, Petitioner v. KEVIN McALEENAN, et al., Respondents.
ORDER ACCEPTING, IN PART, AND REJECTING, IN PART, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition (Dkt. 1), all pleadings and other documents filed in this action, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 10, "Report"), Respondent's Notice filed on December 30, 2019, in lieu of Objections (Dkt. 11), and Respondent's Status Update filed on January 8, 2020, in response to an Order of the Magistrate Judge (Dkts. 12-13). Petitioner has not filed any response to the Report and the deadline for doing so has passed.
The Petition seeks as relief only one thing - that Petitioner be ordered released upon reasonable conditions of supervision unless immigration authorities afford him a bond hearing within a reasonable time. After reviewing the existing record and case law, the Magistrate Judge concluded in the Report that, while it was a close question, Petitioner's continued detention without being afforded a bond hearing would violate due process. The Magistrate Judge declined to recommend Petitioner's release and, instead, recommended that the Petition be granted in a single, specific respect only, namely, that an order issue directing that Petitioner be provided a bond hearing before an immigration judge within 30 days.
After the Report issued, relevant events transpired. As established by Respondent's Report filed on December 30, 2019, a bond hearing for Petitioner was scheduled for December 18, 2019, but thereafter was continued to January 3, 2020, due to the unavailability of Petitioner's counsel. As established by the Status Update filed on January 8, 2020, at that scheduled January 3, 2020 bond hearing, Petitioner withdrew his request to be released on bond.
Having completed its review, the Court concludes that nothing in the record calls into question the analysis and findings set forth in the Report, which are accepted. Events that took placed after the Report issued, however, render Petitioner's request for a bond hearing moot: he was afforded a bond hearing promptly following the issuance of the Report and chose to withdraw his request to be released on bond. Petitioner has received the relief he requested and there no longer is any need for the Court to order a bond hearing. Thus, the Report's recommendation that a bond hearing be ordered has been mooted by subsequent events and, as a result, need not be followed.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Petition is denied as moot; and (2) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action without prejudice. DATE: January 14, 2020
/s/_________
R. GARY KLAUSNER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE