Jose Luis Nava Diaz v. Unknown Party, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

9 Jose Luis Nava Diaz, No. CV-26-01937-PHX-JJT (MTM)

10 Petitioner, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

11 v.

12 Unknown Party, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14

15 TO THE HONORABLE JOHN J. TUCHI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: 16 Self-represented Petitioner Jose Luis Nava Diaz, who is confined in the Central 17 Arizona Florence Correctional Complex, has filed a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and 18 a Memorandum in Support challenging his immigration detention. (Docs. 1, 3.) 19 Among his claims, Petitioner asserts under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), 20 that his prolonged detention violates his Fifth Amendment rights. (Docs. 1, 5.) Petitioner 21 seeks an order directing his immediate release from immigration detention. (Id.) The Court 22 subsequently screened the Petition and required Respondents to file a response. (Doc. 5.) 23 On April 22, 2026, Respondents filed an Answer stating that Petitioner was 24 removed. (Doc. 12.) Counsel for Respondents avers that he received email confirmation 25 from Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Office of the Principal Legal Advisor that 26 Petitioner was removed from the United States on April 17, 2026. (Id. at 1.) In light of his 27 removal, Respondents contend that Petitioner’s habeas petition is now rendered moot 28 because there is no case or controversy. (Id.) 1 Under Article III of the United States Constitution, a federal court has jurisdiction 2 over actual, ongoing controversies. Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199 (1988). 3 “Mootness can arise at any stage of litigation” and “federal courts may not give opinions 4 upon moot questions or abstract propositions[.]” Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 5 (1996) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “A petitioner’s deportation does 6 not automatically render his claim moot” but rather “to continue to present a live 7 controversy after the petitioner’s release or deportation . . . there must be some remaining 8 ‘collateral consequence’ that may be redressed by success on the petition.” Abdala v. I.N.S., 9 488 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2007) (first citing Zegarra–Gomez v. INS, 314 F.3d 1124, 10 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2003)). A petitioner’s claims are rendered moot when the claims were 11 “fully resolved by the release from custody” and “successful resolution of their pending 12 claims could no longer provide the requested relief.” Abdala, 488 F.3d at 1065. 13 Based on the undisputed record before the Court, Petitioner was released from ICE 14 custody and removed from the United States. (Doc. 12.) This is supported by Respondents’ assertion that they received email confirmation from Immigration and Customs 15 Enforcement’s Office of the Principal Legal Advisor that Petitioner was removed from the 16 United States on April 17, 2026. (Id.) 17 Further, Petitioner’s claims in his Petition concern only his detention in ICE custody 18 as he seeks an order directing his immediate release. (Docs. 1, 5.) Because Petitioner’s 19 release from ICE custody and removal from the United States fully resolve the claims and 20 “successful resolution of [the] pending claims could no longer provide the requested 21 relief[,]” Petitioner’s claims are now moot. See Abdala, 488 F.3d at 1065. Accordingly, the 22 Court will recommend that the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a Memorandum in 23 Support be dismissed as moot. 24 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s Petition Under 28 25 U.S.C. § 2241 and a Memorandum in Support challenging his immigration detention 26 (Docs. 1, 3) be DENIED and DISMISSED as moot. 27 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 28 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 2|| parties shall have fourteen 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(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen 5 || days within which to file a response to the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, Local Rules of 6|| Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, objections 7 || to the Report and Recommendation may not exceed seventeen (17) pages in length. 8 Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 9 || Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the 10 || district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 11 | 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the 12 || 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 14 recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 15 Dated this 20th day of May, 2026. 16 Wind YV- Wrorris Yo 17 Honorable Michael T. Morrissey United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-