Lawrikow v. Kollus

Filing 37

ORDER that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is DENIED AS MOOT. That the Motion for Preliminary Injunction of Petitioner 28 is DENIED AS MOOT. That the Amended Report and Recommendation 31 and the objections thereto 35 are likewise MOOT and ordered terminated. The Clerk of the Court shall Terminate this action. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 9/4/09. (DMT, )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

SERGEI LAWRIKOW, Petitioner, v. DAVID KOLLUS, Respondent.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV-08-1403-PHX-GMS (LOA) ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus of Petitioner Sergei Lawrikow, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Dkt. # 1), as well as Petitioner's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. # 28). These documents argue that Petitioner is entitled to be released from custody pending his deportation. On July 27, 2009, the magistrate judge issued an Amended Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. # 31.) Respondent filed objections. (Dkt. # 35.) On September 2, 2009, Respondent filed a Suggestion of Mootness informing the Court that Petitioner has just been deported and is therefore no longer being detained. (Dkt. # 36.) Respondent has provided a copy of the Warrant of Removal/Deportation, which provides that Petitioner was placed on a flight to Moscow on August 28, 2009, and thus is no longer in custody. (Dkt. # 36 Ex. 1.) This Court lacks jurisdiction to review moot issues. Gator.com Corp. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 398 F.3d 1125, 1128 (9th Cir. 2005) ("It is an inexorable command of the United States Constitution that the federal courts confine themselves to deciding actual cases and

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

controversies."). The test for mootness is whether the court can give a party any effective relief in the event that it decides the matter on the merits in its favor; "[t]hat is, whether the court can `undo' the effects of the alleged wrongdoing." Reimers v. Oregon, 863 F.2d 630, 632 (9th Cir. 1989). Here, the pending petition and motion for a preliminary injunction challenge Petitioner's detention and seek his release from custody pending deportation. In view of Petitioner's release from custody, the relief he requests can no longer be effected by this Court. Therefore, no "case or controversy" under Article III of the United States

Constitution remains, and the petition is moot. Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 1991) (finding that because the petitioner only requested a release from custody and had been released the court could provide no further relief and the petition was properly dismissed). This case must therefore be dismissed. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. # 1) is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction of Petitioner (Dkt. # 28) is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 31) and the objections thereto (Dkt. # 35) are likewise MOOT and ordered terminated. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall TERMINATE this action. DATED this 4th day of September, 2009.

-2-