Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02481/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02481-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

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

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Juan Manuel Muniz-Chaidez,

Defendant/Movant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-2481-PHX-GMS (MHB)

No. CR 11-1021-PHX-GMS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Movant Juan Manuel Muniz-Chaidez, who is confined in the Giles W. Dalby

Correctional Facility in Post, Texas, has filed a pro se Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to

Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody. Pursuant to a plea

agreement, Movant pled guilty to Misprision of a Felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4. On

May 7, 2012, the Court sentenced Movant to an 18-month term of imprisonment followed

by 1 year on supervised release. In the § 2255 Motion, Movant alleges that his trial counsel

was ineffective, in violation of the Sixth Amendment, and that his plea was not knowing or

voluntary.

The Court screened the Motion on January 17, 2013, and ordered the United States

to answer. In its Order, the Court also stated, “Movant must file and serve a notice of a

change of address in accordance with Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 2:12-cv-02481-GMS Document 7 Filed 02/28/13 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Movant must not include a motion for other relief with a notice of change of address. Failure

to comply may result in dismissal of this action.”

On January 29, 2013, the docket reflected that mail sent from the Clerk of the Court

to Movant was returned as undeliverable. As such, on February 12, 2013, the Court ordered

Movant to show cause on or before February 25, 2013, why this matter should not be

dismissed for failure to prosecute in light of his failure to file a notice of change of address

as previously ordered by the Court. To date, Movant has not responded. Additionally, on

February 27, 2013, the docket again reflects that mail sent from the Clerk of the Court to

Movant was returned as undeliverable.

Accordingly, in light of Movant’s failure to file a notice of change of address, and it

appearing that Movant has abandoned his claims, the Court will recommend that Movant’s

§ 2255 Motion be denied.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Movant’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 1, CV

12-2481-PHX-GMS (MHB); Doc. 50, CR 11-1021-PHX-GMS) be DENIED and

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be DENIED because reasonable jurists would not

find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable.

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. 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. Failure timely to file objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report

Case 2:12-cv-02481-GMS Document 7 Filed 02/28/13 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

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 28th day of February, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-02481-GMS Document 7 Filed 02/28/13 Page 3 of 3