FRITZ v. GONZALES

KAREN HAYES, Magistrate Judge

Before the court is Nelson Fritz's ("Fritz") pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( 28 U.S.C. § 2241) (Doc. No. 1) filed on April 24, 2006. When he filed his petition, Fritz was in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security/Bureau of Immigration Customs Enforcement (DHS/BICE) and was detained at the Tensas Parish Detention Center, Waterproof, Louisiana. For reasons stated below, it is recommended that Fritz's petition be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as MOOT.

Fritz's claim is limited to a challenge to his continued detention under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001). The government filed a response on May 31, 2006, advising the court that Fritz had been removed from the United States and returned to Haiti on May 16, 2006. (Doc. No. 6).

The undisputed evidence before the court establishes that Fritz is no longer in custody, that he has been removed from the United States, and that his claim was limited to a challenge to his detention pending removal. Thus, Fritz's habeas petition is now moot.

Therefore, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Nelson Fritz be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AS MOOT.

Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and FRCP Rule 72(b), the parties have ten (10) business days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court. A party may respond to another party's objections within ten (10) business days after being served with a copy thereof. A courtesy copy of any objection or response or request for extension of time shall be furnished to the District Judge at the time of filing. Timely objections will be considered by the District Judge before he makes a final ruling.

A PARTY'S FAILURE TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT WITHIN TEN (10) BUSINESS DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ITS SERVICE SHALL BAR AN AGGRIEVED PARTY, EXCEPT ON GROUNDS OF PLAIN ERROR, FROM ATTACKING ON APPEAL THE UNOBJECTED-TO PROPOSED FACTUAL FINDINGS AND LEGAL CONCLUSIONS ACCEPTED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE.