Win v. Gurule

Filing 4

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that the Petition (Doc. 1 ) and this action are dismissed as moot. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 5/29/13. (LAD)

JKM

1
2

WO

3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Wanna Win,

No. CV 13-1019-PHX-DGC (MHB)
Petitioner,

10
11

vs.

12

Jon Gurule,

13

ORDER

Respondent.

14
15

Petitioner Wanna Win (A073-219-873) has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of

16

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking his immediate release from custody

17

on the grounds that his detention with no prospect that his removal would be effected in

18

the reasonably foreseeable future was not authorized by law. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533

19

U.S. 678 (2001) (when there is no reasonable likelihood that a foreign government will

20

accept an alien’s return in the reasonably foreseeable future, the INS may not detain the

21

alien for more than the presumptively reasonable period of six months).

22

On May 23, 2013, mail sent to Petitioner by the Clerk of Court was returned as

23

undeliverable. (Doc. 3.) Additionally, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

24

online Detainee Locator, https://locator.ice.gov/odls/homePage.do, indicates that

25

Petitioner is no longer in ICE custody. A habeas corpus petition filed by a petitioner who

26

“challenge[s] only the length of his detention, as distinguished from the lawfulness of the

27

deportation order, . . . . [is] rendered moot by his removal.” Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d

28

1061, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007).

Similarly, a habeas corpus “petitioner’s release from

1

detention under an order of supervision ‘moots his challenge to the legality of his

2

extended detention.’” Id. at1064 (quoting Riley v. INS, 310 F.3d 1253, 1256-57 (10th

3

Cir. 2002). Because Petitioner has not filed a notice of change of address, an order to

4

show cause why this action should not be dismissed as moot would be futile. See Carey

5

v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (“An order to show cause why dismissal is

6

not warranted or an order imposing sanctions would only find itself taking a round trip

7

tour through the United States mail.”). Accordingly, this action will be dismissed as

8

moot.

9
10
11

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition (Doc. 1) and this action are dismissed as moot.
The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.
Dated this 29th day of May, 2013.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-