Depaz
v.
Ice

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASep 2, 2018
Case No. 1:18-cv-00820-JDP (E.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2018)

Case No. 1:18-cv-00820-JDP

09-02-2018

RAFAEL FRANCISCO DEPAZ, Petitioner, v. DHS ICE, Respondent.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 7.) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

Petitioner Rafael Francisco DePaz was detained by the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") at the time he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This court issued an order to show cause requiring respondent to show cause why DePaz should not be released immediately from ICE custody. (Doc. No. 3.)

Respondent has filed a response to that included a motion to dismiss the petition for mootness. (Doc. No. 7.) Respondent states that DePaz has been released from custody under an order of an immigration judge. (See id. at 1.) In support of this contention, respondent has submitted a copy of the order of the immigration judge dated July 26, 2018. (Doc. No. 7-1.) DePaz has not responded to the motion to dismiss.

For these reasons:

1. The order to show cause (Doc. No. 3) is discharged;
2. The clerk of the court is directed to assign a district judge to this case;

3. Respondent is directed to mail a copy of these findings and recommendations to petitioner at his last known address; and
4. It is recommended that:

a. respondent's motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 7) be granted;
b. the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) be denied as moot; and
c. the clerk be directed to close this case.


All motions must be submitted on the record, and briefs must be filed without oral argument unless otherwise ordered by the court. See Local Rule 230(l). The court will grant extensions only upon a showing of good cause. If a party requires an extension, that party should file a motion for amendment of the schedule before the relevant deadline has passed and should explain in detail why an extension is required. Local Rule 110 applies to this order. These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the U.S. district judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days of service of these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. If plaintiff files such objections, he should do so in a document captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. See Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 2, 2018

/s/_________


UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE