Incze v. ICE Field Office Director

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT g WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 GYULA ATTILA INCZE, CASE NO. C21-0074JLR-DWC 11 Petitioner, ORDER V. 3 ICE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, 14 Respondent.

15 This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation of United 16 States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel (R&R (Dkt. # 18)). Having carefully || reviewed the foregoing, all other relevant documents, and the governing law, the court || DECLINES to adopt the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 18) but DISMISSES || Petitioner Gyula Attila Incze’s habeas petition (Dkt. # 7) as moot.

20 A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge’s report and 21 recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge must || determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly || objected to.” /d. The court reviews de novo those portions of the report and || recommendation to which specific written objection is made. United States v. || Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). When no objections are || filed, the court need not review de novo the report and recommendation. Wang v. || Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005).

6 Here, no party has objected to Magistrate Judge Christel’s Report and ||Recommendation. (See Dkt.) The Government has, however, filed a Notice of Factual || Update stating that the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) has dismissed his appeal || and that Mr. Incze’s detention is now mandated by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2), a statute that || was not considered by the Report and Recommendation. (Not. (Dkt. # 19); see R&R.) || Accordingly, the court agrees with the Government that detention is now required by || § 1231(a)(2) for a 90-day removal period, and Mr. Incze’s habeas petition—which solely || addresses 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(a) and 1226(c)—is now moot. (See Not. at 2); Muhamd v. 14 Field Office Director, No. C20-0605RAJ, 2020 WL 6418686, at *1 (W.D. Wash. || Oct. 28, 2020). “A federal court lacks [subject-matter] jurisdiction to hear a case that is || moot,” Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Inyo Cnty., 863 F.3d 1144, 1155 (9th Cir. 2017), and if the || court determines “at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must || dismiss the action,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12. Mr. Incze does not argue otherwise. (See Dkt.)

19 // || // |\\// ORDER - 2 1 Accordingly, the court DECLINES to adopt the Report and Recommendation || (Dkt. # 18) but DENIES Mr. Incze’s habeas petition (Dkt. # 7) as moot. The court || DISMISSES this action without prejudice.

4 Dated this A day of July, 2021.

NX tinal JAMES I). ROBART 6 United States District Judge

ORDER - 3