Xing Hai Liu v. Ashcroft, CIV. 02-088-P-C.
Decision Date | 04 September 2002 |
Docket Number | No. CIV. 02-088-P-C.,CIV. 02-088-P-C. |
Citation | 218 F.Supp.2d 1 |
Parties | XING HAI LIU, Ins. No. A73 539 298 Petitioner v. John D. ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Defendant |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
Xing Hai Liu, Portland, ME, pro se.
Dennis Cheung, Brooklyn, NY, for plaintiff.
Christine A. Bither, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, Jennifer Lightbody, Mark C. Walters, Washington, DC, for defendant.
ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge having filed with the Court on July 19, 2002, with copies to the pro se Petitioner and to counsel, her Recommended Decision herein (Docket No. 12); and Respondent having filed his Response thereto on July 24, 2002 (Docket No. 13); and this Court having reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; and this Court having made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, and concurring with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in her Recommended Decision, and having determined that no further proceeding is necessary; it is ORDERED as follows:
(1) The Response of the Respondent is hereby NOTED;
(2) The Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby AFFIRMED;
(3) The Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. 5) is hereby DISMISSED as MOOT.
On April 24, 2002, Xing Hai Liu filed a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and a motion for an emergency hearing, alleging that he had been held in INS detention under a final order of removal since November 8, 2001. (Docket No. 1.) According to Liu's initial petition he was anxious to return to his home in China and had cooperated fully with the INS but had received no assurances as to when he would be returned. Therefore, under applicable United States Supreme Court precedent, Liu contended that he was entitled to some form of supervised release. The initial petition was signed by an attorney who had not been admitted to practice in this district and who did not have local counsel sign the pleading.
After some preliminary exchanges regarding the attorney's status, an amended petition was filed by Liu, proceeding pro se, on May 3, 2002. (Docket No. 5.) I ordered the United States to answer both the petition and the motion for emergency hearing. The United States responded to the motion for an emergency hearing on May 16, 2002, (Docket No. 7) indicating that Liu had not cooperated with the INS in obtaining his removal until January 18, 2002, and that therefore the presumptive six-month detention period which is reasonably necessary to bring about the alien's removal from the United States suggested by Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001), would not expire until July 18, 2002. After receiving the United States' response, Liu voluntarily withdrew his petition for an emergency hearing. (Docket No. 8.)
On June 10, 2002, the United States filed its timely response to and a motion to dismiss the underlying petition. (Docket No. 9.) Liu promptly replied on June 14, 2002, and I took the matter under advisement. Prior to issuing my recommended decision, I received a faxed document from Senior Litigation Counsel for the United States Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation on July 1, 2002. She represented that copies of the same document had been furnished to petitioner and his original attorney, Dennis Cheung of Brooklyn, New York. The original was filed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Borum v. Brentwood Vill., LLC
... ... R. Civ. P. 56(a). A "material" fact is one capable of affecting the substantive ... ...
-
Chung v. Whiddon
...2002 WL 975434, at *2 (E.D. La. 2002) (finding petition moot where petitioner was deported to nativecountry); Xing Hai Liu v. Ashcroft, 218 F.Supp.2d 1, 1 (D. Me. 2002) (dismissing petition as moot because petitioner had been returned to China); Malainak v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv......
-
Phang v. Whiddon
...2002 WL 975434, at *2 (E.D. La. 2002) (finding petition moot where petitioner was deported to native country); Xing Hai Liu v. Ashcroft, 218 F. Supp. 2d 1, 1 (D. Me. 2002) (dismissing petition as moot because petitioner had been returned to China); Malainak v. INS, Case No. 3-01-cv-1989, 20......
-
Zhang v. Streiff
...1." Gauchier v. Davis, 2002 WL 975434, *2 (E.D.La. 2002); see Camara v. INS, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2465 (S.D.Ala.); Xing Hai Liu v. Ashcroft, 218 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.Me.2002) (petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed as moot because petitioner had been returned to China); Malainak v. Immigra......