Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00298/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00298-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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 

Clevon Townsend, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JT Shartle, 

Respondent.

No. CV 13-298-TUC-DCB (BPV)

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 

 

 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s pro se Petition under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 for 

a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 1). Respondent has filed 

an Answer (Doc. 8). Petitioner did not file a reply. 

 Pursuant to the Rules of Practice of this Court, this matter was referred to the 

Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle for a Report and Recommendation, and was recently 

re-referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation. 

(Docs. 14, 17). For the following reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the 

District Court, after its independent review, dismiss Petitioner’s Petition without 

prejudice. 

 

Case 4:13-cv-00298-DCB Document 19 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

I. Returned Mail 

 Petitioner Clevon Townsend, while incarcerated at the Federal Correctional 

Institution in Safford, Arizona, filed the instant Petition seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. '

2241 with regard to his sentence computation.1

 Respondent indicates that Petitioner’s 

projected release date, after application of anticipated good conduct time sentence credits 

is March 31, 2017. (Doc. 8, p.2 (citing Doc. 8-1, &&2, 4)). 

 On April 30, 2013, the Clerk of Court entered a Notice of Assignment which, inter 

alia, warned Petitioner that he “must file a Notice of Change of Address if your address 

changes.” (Doc. 2, p. 2). On August 9, 2013, the Court entered an Order advising 

Petitioner, inter alia, that he “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. Petitioner 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.” (Doc. 4, p. 2). 

 On April 4, 2016, the minute order referring this matter to the undersigned 

Magistrate Judge was mailed to Petitioner at his address of record. (Doc. 17). On April 

15, 2016, that mail was returned to the Court as undeliverable because Petitioner was no 

longer at Taft Correctional Institution. (Doc. 18 (also indicating “unable to forward”)). 

 The Federal Bureau of Prisons website indicates that Petitioner is no longer in 

BOP custody. See https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/. 

 Petitioner has the general duty to prosecute this case. Fidelity Philadelphia Trust 

Co. v. Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). In this regard, it 

is the duty of a petitioner who has filed a pro se action to keep the Court apprised of his 

 

1

 The record reflects that since the filing of the Petition, Petitioner has been transferred to Taft Correctional Institution located in Taft, California. (See Doc. 3 

(Petitioner’s Notice of Change of Address)). Because Petitioner was incarcerated at the 

Federal Correctional Institution in Arizona when he filed his Petition, this Court retains 

jurisdiction to consider the Petition. See Francis v. Rison, 894 F.2d 353, 354 (9th Cir. 

1990) (“jurisdiction attaches on the initial filing for habeas corpus relief, and it is not destroyed by a transfer of the petitioner and the accompanying custodial change.”)(internal quotation marks & citation omitted). 

Case 4:13-cv-00298-DCB Document 19 Filed 05/06/16 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

or her current address and to comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. This 

Court does not have an affirmative obligation to locate Petitioner. “A party, not the 

district court, bears the burden of keeping the court apprised of any changes in his 

mailing address.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988). Petitioner's failure 

to keep the Court informed of his new address constitutes failure to prosecute and failure 

to comply with the Court's orders and rules. 

 Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that an action may be 

dismissed for “fail[ure] to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order....” 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that a federal district court 

has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute, even though 

the language of Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure appears to require a 

motion from a party. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–31, (1962); see 

also Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. United States Forest Service, 403 F.3d 683, 

689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte”); Henderson v. 

Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986) (same). Moreover, in appropriate circumstances, 

the Court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute even without notice or hearing. 

Link, 370 U.S. at 633. 

 In determining whether Petitioner's failure to prosecute warrants dismissal of his 

case, the Court must weigh the following five factors: (1) the public's interest in 

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk 

of prejudice to the respondents; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 

“The first two of these factors favor the imposition of sanctions in most cases, while the 

fourth cuts against a default or dismissal sanction. Thus the key factors are prejudice and 

availability of lesser sanctions.” Wanderer v. Johnson, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990). 

 Here, the first, second, and third factors favor dismissal of this case. Petitioner's 

failure to keep the Court informed of his address supports the conclusion that he has 

abandoned this action upon his release from prison. This conclusion is further supported 

Case 4:13-cv-00298-DCB Document 19 Filed 05/06/16 Page 3 of 5
- 4 - 

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 

by the fact that in the past Petitioner did in fact submit a notice of change of address (see

Doc. 3), but did not choose do so when he left Taft Correctional Institution. Petitioner's 

failure to actively participate in this case prevents the case from proceeding in the 

foreseeable future. On these facts, further delay to the Court or to Respondent is not 

warranted. The fourth factor, as always, weighs against dismissal. The fifth factor 

requires the Court to consider whether a less drastic alternative is available. Petitioner has 

received adequate warning of the potential for dismissal if he failed to keep the Court 

apprised of his address. Additionally, without Petitioner's current address, certain 

alternatives are bound to be futile. In the instant case, as in Carey, “[a]n order to show 

cause why dismissal ... [is] not warranted or an order imposing sanctions would only find 

itself taking a round trip tour through the United States mail.” Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441. 

 Only one less drastic sanction is realistically available. Rule 41(b) provides that a 

dismissal for failure to prosecute operates as an adjudication upon the merits unless the 

court states otherwise in its order for dismissal. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). In the instant case, a 

dismissal with prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh given that this action can be 

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. See Halid v. DeRosa, 2015 WL 1055971 (D. Ariz. Mar. 10, 2015) (dismissing 

petition filed under '2241 without prejudice for failure to prosecute where petitioner 

failed to keep court informed of his current address); United States v. Payan, 2010 WL 

960999 (D. Ariz. Mar.15, 2010) (same with regard to action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '

2255). 

C. RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District 

Court, after its independent review, dismiss without prejudice Petitioner’s Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and LRCiv 7.2(e), Rules of Practice of the U.S. District Court for the District 

Case 4:13-cv-00298-DCB Document 19 Filed 05/06/16 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

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 

of Arizona, any party may serve and file written objections within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS

after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. A party may respond 

to another party’s objections within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy. 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). No replies to objections shall be filed unless leave is granted from 

the District Court to do so. If objections are filed, the parties should use the following 

case number: CV 13-298-TUC-DCB. 

 Failure to file timely objections to any factual or legal determination of the 

Magistrate Judge may be deemed a waiver of the party’s right to review. 

 Dated this 6th day of May, 2016. 

Case 4:13-cv-00298-DCB Document 19 Filed 05/06/16 Page 5 of 5