Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sosa-Casasola v. Holder

United States District Court, D. Arizona

January 16, 2014

Claudia Patricia Sosa-Casasola, Petitioner,
v.
Eric H. Holder, et al., Respondents.

TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MICHELLE H. BURNS, Magistrate Judge.

Petitioner Claudia Patricia Soda-Casasola (A205-415-708), who is represented by counsel, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). Petitioner seeks an order granting her a bond hearing before an IJ as provided in Rodriguez v. Robbins , 715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013).

On January 7, 2014, Respondents filed a Notice to Court and Suggestion of Mootness demonstrating that on January 2, 2014, Petitioner was removed from the United States pursuant to the IJ's April 11, 2013 Order of Removal. (Doc. 11, Exh. 1.) Thus, it appearing that Petitioner is no longer in custody and that there is no longer a live case or controversy in this matter, the Court issued an Order to show cause requiring Petitioner to show cause why this action should not be dismissed as moot.

On January 15, 2014, Petitioner, through counsel, filed a Motion to Dismiss conceding that, in light of Petitioner's removal from the United States, her Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is now moot.

Accordingly, in light of Petitioner's removal and it appearing that no case or controversy remains, the Court will recommend that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed as moot.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED as moot and without prejudice;

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) be DENIED as moot.

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 (9th 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.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.