v. Holder et al

Filing 21

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION recommending that 18 Juan Arellano's MOTION to Withdraw Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be granted and that 3 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus dismissed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot 13 Emergency MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Petition for Habeas Corpus. Signed by Magistrate Judge David K Duncan on 8/6/09. (LSP)

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 ) ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) Eric H. Holder, Jr. United States Attorney) ) General, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) ) Juan Arellano-Valle, No. CIV 09-1448-PHX-JAT (DKD) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

TO THE HONORABLE JAMES A. TEILBORG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: Represented by counsel, Petitioner Juan Arrellano-Valle filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on July 13, 2009. In his petition, he alleges that as a result of a heart-lung transplant he received on June 7, 2008 and his compromised immune system, his continued detention poses a grave danger to his survival (Doc. #3). On July 20, he filed an emergency motion for an expedited hearing (Doc. #13). On July 28, 2009, Arellano moved to withdraw his petition, based on the government's agreement to release him. IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Juan Arellano's Motion to Withdraw Petition be granted and that his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed (Doc. #3, 18). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that his Emergency Motion to Expedite Hearing is denied as moot (Doc. #13).

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

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 ten 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(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten 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. ReynaTapia, 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. DATED this 6th day of August, 2009.

-2-