Quijano v. United States of America et al

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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jose Alberto Miron Quijano,
Petitioner,
v.
United States of America, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV 25-04676 PHX DJH (CDB)
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
TO THE HONORABLE DIANE J. HUMETEWA:
On December 15, 2025, Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador who came
to the United States with his wife and children seeking asylum, filed a petition seeking
his release from detention pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 533
U.S. 678, 701 (2001). At that time Petitioner was detained at the San Luis Regional
Detention Center and he had been detained upon entry into the United States for more
than three years, although his family was not detained. On February 12, 2026, the Court
denied Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel and ordered Respondents to
answer the petition no later than March 6, 2026. Respondents docketed a response to the
petition, advising that Petitioner has been removed from the United States and, therefore,
the § 2241 petition is moot.
The petition requests a determination that Petitioner’s detention was not justified
and that his continued detention violates his rights to due process of law. The petition
further asks the Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus and order Petitioner’s release from
custody within twenty (20) days, or order a bond hearing.
Case 2:25-cv-04676-DJH Document 9 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
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
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the § 2241 petition at ECF No. 1 be denied
without prejudice as moot at this time.
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.
Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have
fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within
which to file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have
fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Pursuant to
Rule 7.2(e)(3) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation may not
exceed ten (10) pages in length. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal
determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to
de novo appellate consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d
1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
Dated this 24th day of February, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-04676-DJH Document 9 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 2