United States District Court, D. Arizona
HONORABLE DIANE J. HUMETEWA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) issued by United States Magistrate
John Z. Boyle (Doc. 19) to Respondents' Motion to Dismiss
and/or Transfer Venue to the District of New Jersey. (Doc.
13). Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on August 31, 2017 (Doc.
1). Respondents filed their Motion to Dismiss on October 3,
2017. The R&R recommends granting the Motion to Dismiss
the Petition. Petitioner has filed an Objection to the Report
and Recommendation (Doc. 20). Respondents have filed a
response to Petitioner's Objection (Doc. 23). Petitioner
also filed a supplemental objection to the R&R (Doc. 21)
and a “Traverse” to the Respondents' Response
(Doc. 24). The Court will strike both of those filings as
being non-compliant with the Local Rules.
who is awaiting removal to Nigeria, asserts his detention
period has been longer than what is reasonable and therefore
that he is entitled a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a). (Doc. 1). An order was issued for Petitioner
to be removed from the country. Petitioner filed a Petition
for Review (“PFR”) of that decision in the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, which automatically stayed
Petitioner's removal. The present Petition followed.
Motion to Dismiss argues that the Petition is duplicative of
a Petition filed by Petitioner in the District of New Jersey.
(Doc. 13). Moreover, subsequent to the filing of the Motion
to Dismiss, the Ninth Circuit denied the PFR and vacated the
stay of Petitioner's removal. (Doc. 17-1 at 15). Based on
this ruling, the R&R found that the Petitioner's
arguments are moot. Additionally, the R&R found that all
of the claims in the Petition are duplicative to the New
Jersey Petition. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge
recommends the Motion to Dismiss be granted. (Doc. 19 at 6).
For reasons stated below, the Court will adopt the
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and grant
Respondents' Motion to Dismiss.
a citizen of Nigeria, was convicted in state court in New
Jersey on April 13, 2000, and was sentenced to a term of ten
years imprisonment. (Doc. 13-1 at 1). On July 12, 2010, an
immigration judge ordered Petitioner to be removed from the
United States. (Id.) On April 27, 2011, Petitioner
was arrested on federal criminal charges and was detained
pending trial. (Id.) This detention forms the basis
for the Petition. The R&R summarizes the remainder of the
procedural background of the case, including his cases from
the immigration court, the District of New Jersey, and the
Third and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. 27 at 1-3).
The Court therefore finds it unnecessary to repeat the same
information here. Moreover, Petitioner has not objected to
the information in the background section. See Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (The relevant provision of the
Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C),
“does not on its face require any review at all . . .
of any issue that is not the subject of an
district judge “shall make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3)
(“The district judge must determine de novo any part of
the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly
objected to.”); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,
1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(same). The judge “may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).
argue, in their reply to Petitioner's objection to the
R&R, that the Ninth Circuit decision to vacate his stay
of removal renders Petitioner's claims moot. (Doc. 23).
Respondents also move to dismiss the Petition on the ground
that it is duplicative of the petition filed by Petitioner in
the District of New Jersey.
Petitioner's Claims are Moot When a stay of a removal
order is lifted by the appellate court, the order of removal
becomes administratively final and the statute governing the
detention of a petitioner shifts from 8 U.S.C. § 1226,
and is subsequently governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a). See
Casas-Castrillon v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 535 F.3d 942,
947 (9th Cir. 2008) (“If an alien has filed a petition
for review with [the circuit] court and received a judicial
stay of removal, the ‘removal period' under §
1231(a) does not begin until [the] court ‘denies the
petition and withdraws the stay of removal.'”).
Moreover, a case becomes moot when it no longer satisfies
Article III standing requirements. “This case-
or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages of
federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate.”
Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472,
this Court, Petitioner asserts that he was detained pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (Doc. 1 at 7). The Petition seeks
habeas relief based on the stay of removal that was issued by
the Ninth Circuit, arguing that his “prolonged
detention in excess of six months” entitles him to a
bond determination hearing. (Doc. 1 at 7). At the time the
Petition was filed in this Court, the PFR and the stay of
removal before the Ninth Circuit were the only pending
matters justifying detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1226(a). As discussed above, the Ninth Circuit vacated the
stay of removal on October 11, 2017, finding that it lacked
jurisdiction over the Petition. (Doc. 17-1). When the Ninth
Circuit denied the PFR and lifted the stay of the removal
order, the order of removal became administratively final,
and Petitioner was no longer being held pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a), but rather 1231(a). See
Casas-Castrillon, 535 F.3d at 94. The Court can no
longer grant the relief Petitioner seeks pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a). See Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477-478.
Therefore, Petitioner's claims for relief based on his
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) are moot and the
Court will adopt the R&R and grant Respondents'
Motion to Dismiss the Petition.
Petition is Duplicative
found that the Petition is moot, the Court need not address
the issue of duplicative petitions, but will briefly discuss
the issue. As an additional and independent ground for
adopting the R&R, the Petition is also duplicative to the
Petition filed in New Jersey.
courts “retain broad powers to prevent duplicative or
unnecessary litigation.” Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000). “A suit is duplicative if the
claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly
differ between the two actions.” iStar RC Paradise
Valley LLC v. Five Star Dev., No. CV-10-2191- PHX-GMS,
2011 WL 4852293, at *8 (D. Ariz. Oct. 13, 2011) (quoting
Barapind v. Reno,72 F.Supp.2d 1132, 1145 (E.D.
Cal.1999) (internal citation omitted)). Where a petitioner
files more than one suit in more than one district with
similar claims, parties, and relief, “the court has
discretion to abate or dismiss the second action.”
Id.; see also Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld
Products, Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 625 (9th Cir. 1991)
(citing Pacesett ...