Gill v. Napolitano et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Ravinder Singh Gill's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge David K Duncan on 10/1/09. (SAT)
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 vs. Janet Napolitano, et al., Respondents. Ravinder Singh Gill, Petitioner, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CIV 09-1553-PHX-PGR (DKD) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
TO THE HONORABLE PAUL G. ROSENBLATT, U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE: Ravinder Singh Gill, formerly confined at the Eloy Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on July 27, 2009, alleging that immigration officials are holding him in detention pending his removal to India. He argues that he is entitled to release from custody because his detention with no prospect that his removal will be effected in the reasonably foreseeable future is not authorized by law. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). On September 18, 2009, the Court ordered Respondents to answer the petition (Doc. #4). On September 25, 2009, a copy of the Court's September 18 Order was returned as undeliverable, indicating that Gill is no longer in custody (Doc. #13). IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Ravinder Singh Gill's petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as moot (Doc. #1). 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
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
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 1st day of October, 2009.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?