Diaz v. Unknown Party 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 Luis Nava Diaz,
Petitioner,
v.
Unknown Party, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-26-01937-PHX-JJT (MTM)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO THE HONORABLE JOHN J. TUCHI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Self-represented Petitioner Jose Luis Nava Diaz, who is confined in the Central
Arizona Florence Correctional Complex, has filed a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and
a Memorandum in Support challenging his immigration detention. (Docs. 1, 3.)
Among his claims, Petitioner asserts under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001),
that his prolonged detention violates his Fifth Amendment rights. (Docs. 1, 5.) Petitioner
seeks an order directing his immediate release from immigration detention. (Id.) The Court
subsequently screened the Petition and required Respondents to file a response. (Doc. 5.)
On April 22, 2026, Respondents filed an Answer stating that Petitioner was
removed. (Doc. 12.) Counsel for Respondents avers that he received email confirmation
from Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Office of the Principal Legal Advisor that
Petitioner was removed from the United States on April 17, 2026. (Id. at 1.) In light of his
removal, Respondents contend that Petitioner’s habeas petition is now rendered moot
because there is no case or controversy. (Id.)
Case 2:26-cv-01937-JJT Document 14 Filed 05/20/26 Page 1 of 3

- 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
Under Article III of the United States Constitution, a federal court has jurisdiction
over actual, ongoing controversies. Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199 (1988).
“Mootness can arise at any stage of litigation” and “federal courts may not give opinions
upon moot questions or abstract propositions[.]” Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150
(1996) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “A petitioner’s deportation does
not automatically render his claim moot” but rather “to continue to present a live
controversy after the petitioner’s release or deportation . . . there must be some remaining
‘collateral consequence’ that may be redressed by success on the petition.” Abdala v. I.N.S.,
488 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2007) (first citing Zegarra–Gomez v. INS, 314 F.3d 1124,
1126-27 (9th Cir. 2003)). A petitioner’s claims are rendered moot when the claims were
“fully resolved by the release from custody” and “successful resolution of their pending
claims could no longer provide the requested relief.” Abdala, 488 F.3d at 1065.
Based on the undisputed record before the Court, Petitioner was released from ICE
custody and removed from the United States. (Doc. 12.) This is supported by Respondents’
assertion 	that 	they 	received 	email 	confirmation 	from 	Immigration 	and 	Customs
Enforcement’s Office of the Principal Legal Advisor that Petitioner was removed from the
United States on April 17, 2026. (Id.)
Further, Petitioner’s claims in his Petition concern only his detention in ICE custody
as he seeks an order directing his immediate release. (Docs. 1, 5.) Because Petitioner’s
release from ICE custody and removal from the United States fully resolve the claims and
“successful resolution of [the] pending claims could no longer provide the requested
relief[,]” Petitioner’s claims are now moot. See Abdala, 488 F.3d at 1065. Accordingly, the
Court will recommend that the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a Memorandum in
Support be dismissed as moot.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s Petition Under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 and a Memorandum in Support challenging his immigration detention
(Docs. 1, 3) be DENIED and DISMISSED as moot.
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
Case 2:26-cv-01937-JJT Document 14 Filed 05/20/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
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
Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The
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
days within which to file a response to the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, 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 seventeen (17) pages in length.
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. Reyna-Tapia, 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 20th day of May, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-01937-JJT Document 14 Filed 05/20/26 Page 3 of 3