Opinion
No. CV-16-01205-PHX-GMS (ESW)
01-25-2017
Abdou-Rachidou Tchassama, Petitioner, v. Jon Gurule, Respondents.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Pending before the Court is Abdou-Rachidou Tchassama's ("Petitioner") pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (the "Petition") (Doc. 1). For the reasons explained herein, the undersigned recommends that the Petition be dismissed without prejudice as Petitioner's recent deportation renders the case moot.
On March 4, 2015, Petitioner, who is a native citizen of Togo, arrived at the San Ysidro, California Port of Entry and applied for admission into the United States. (Doc. 11-1 at 4). The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") detained Petitioner on March 7, 2015. (Id. at 3). On October 20, 2015, an Immigration Judge ordered that Petitioner be removed from the United States to Togo. (Id. at 18). On January 16, 2016, ICE issued a Decision to Continue Detention informing Petitioner that he would remain in custody pending his removal. (Id. at 25-26). Citing to Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), Petitioner challenges the legality of his extended detention pending removal. (Doc. 1 at 4). Petitioner requests that he be released under an order of supervision. (Id. at 9).
On December 13, 2016, Respondent filed a "Notice to Court and Suggestion of Mootness" (Doc. 14), explaining that on November 15, 2016, Petitioner was removed from the United States. The Warrant of Removal/Deportation attached to the Notice states that Petitioner was "removed via air on 11/15/16 to Togo." (Doc. 14-1 at 3).
In light of the evidence indicating that Petitioner has been released as requested in the Petition (Doc. 1), the undersigned finds that there is no further relief that the Court can provide and the case is moot. See Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that 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 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 25th day of January, 2017.
/s/_________
Eileen S. Willett
United States Magistrate Judge