Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00870/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00870-0/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

- 1 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Moses Gai Geng,

Petitioner

-vsMichael Chertoff, et al.,

Respondent(s)

CV-07-0870-PHX-EHC (JI)

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241

I. MATTER UNDER CONSIDERATION

Petitioner, incarcerated at the time in the Federal Detention Center, Eloy, Arizona,

filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241on April 27, 2007

(#1) challenging his continued detention pending removal. 

The undersigned finds that Petitioner's Petition is now ripe for dismissal for failure

to prosecute. Accordingly, the undersigned makes the following proposed findings of fact,

report, and recommendation pursuant to Rule 8(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,

Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72.2(a)(2), Local

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

II. RELEVANT FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 25, 2007, Respondents filed their Response and Suggestion of Mootness

(#17), relating that Petitioner had been granted release from custody on bond. On June 28,

20007, the Court ordered (#8) Petitioner to show cause why his Petitioner should not be

dismissed as moot in light of the issuance of a Notice by the Immigration and Customs

Enforcement agency, authorizing his release from detention on bond. On July 27, 2007,

Petitioner responded (#10) indicating that his Petition continued to set forth a justiciable

Case 2:07-cv-00870-EHC Document 23 Filed 02/12/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

controversy in light of his inability to post the required bond.

Subsequently, on December 3, 2007, Respondents filed a notice of Suggestion of

Mootness (#16), relating that Petitioner had been released from custody. On December 7,

2007, Respondents filed (#17) a copy of the Order of Supervision, reflecting Petitioner’s

release on August 21, 2007.

Despite his apparent relocation, Petitioner did not file a notice of change of address,

as previously ordered, telling the Court of his new address. (See Notice of Assignment, #2;

Order 6/1/07, #3 at 2.) Accordingly, on December 19, 2007, the undersigned issued an Order

(#18) giving Petitioner ten days to either: (1) file a notice of change of address; or (2) show

cause why his Petition should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute in light of his failure

to file a Notice of Change of Address as previously ordered. That Order further gave

Petitioner ten days to show cause why his Petition should not be dismissed as moot in light

of his apparent release from custody. Copies of that order were mailed to Petitioner at his

address of record and the non-custodial address reflected on his Order of Supervision, but

both were returned undeliverable (#19 & 20). 

Upon review, the undersigned noted a more complete address for Petitioner, and thus

on January 11, 2008, reissued the order to show cause (#21) to Petitioner, and directed

mailing to the address of record and the non-custodial address. Copies of that order were

mailed to Petitioner at his address of record and the revised non-custodial address. Only the

copy forwarded to the address of record was returned undeliverable (#22). 

Petitioner has not responded. 

III. APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS

A. MOOTNESS OF HABEAS PETITION

“Article III of the Constitution limits federal ‘Judicial Power,’ that is, federal-court

jurisdiction, to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” U.S. Parole Commission v. Geraghty, 445

U.S. 388, 395, 100 S.Ct. 1202, 1208 (1980). This limitation restricts the jurisdiction of the

federal courts to cases where there is a possible judicial resolution. Id. A moot action is not

Case 2:07-cv-00870-EHC Document 23 Filed 02/12/08 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

subject to a judicial resolution.

A moot action is one in which the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the

outcome. The test for mootness is whether the court can give a party any effective relief in

the event that it decides the matter on the merits in their favor. “That is, whether the court

can ‘undo’ the effects of the alleged wrongdoing.” Reimers v. Oregon, 863 F.2d 630, 632

(9th Cir. 1989). 

A habeas petition may be rendered moot following a subsequent release from custody,

absent other, collateral consequences that flow from the complained of imprisonment. Lane

v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624 (1982). While the existence of such collateral consequences is

irrebuttably presumed in some habeas challenges to criminal convictions, see e.g., Sibron v.

New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968); Chacon v. Wood, 36 F.3d 1459 (9th Cir. 1994), no such

presumption applies to habeas petitions challenging deportation orders.

Here, Petitioner does not challenge his underlying removal order, but merely his

continued detention pending the execution of that order. However, although that detention

has terminated, Petitioner remains subject to conditions of supervision. Under those

circumstances, there may yet remain relief which may be granted. Reimers, supra. 

Moreover, Petitioner has not yet been heard from on whether the matter has been rendered

moot by his release on bond. 

However, in light of Petitioner’s failure to prosecute, the Court need not resolve that

issue to dispose of this matter.

B. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

“The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally

been considered an ‘inherent power,' governed not by rule or statute but by the control

necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and

expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-631 (1962).

“Accordingly, when circumstances make such action appropriate, a District Court may

dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute even without affording notice of its intention to

Case 2:07-cv-00870-EHC Document 23 Filed 02/12/08 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

do so or providing an adversary hearing before acting. Whether such an order can stand on

appeal depends not on power but on whether it was within the permissible range of the

court's discretion.” Id. at 633.

In determining whether an abuse of discretion has occurred, a number of factors are

relevant, including the plaintiff's diligence, the trial court's need to manage its docket, the

danger of prejudice to the party suffering the delay, the availability of alternate sanctions, and

the existence of warning to the party occasioning the delay. See, e.g., Hamilton v. Neptune

Orient Lines, Ltd., 811 F.2d 498, 499 (9th Cir.1987).

Despite having twice been given specific notice of his obligation to file a notice of

change of address, and an order specifically directing him to do so, Petitioner has failed to

keep his current address on file with the Court.

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

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.

Petitioner has failed to prosecute this action, and dismissal is therefore within the

discretion of the Court. Link v. Wabash R. Co.,supra. In the instant case, Petitioner appears

to have abandoned this action upon his release from custody. Petitioner has had over five

months since his release to file a notice of change of address. Further delay to the Court and

to Respondent is not warranted. Also, Petitioner has received adequate warning of the

potential of such action, and in light of Petitioner’s refusal to respond to the Court, less

onerous sanctions will be ineffective. 

IV. RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus (#1) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.

Case 2:07-cv-00870-EHC Document 23 Filed 02/12/08 Page 4 of 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

- 5 -

V. EFFECT OF RECOMMENDATION

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. 

However, pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall

have ten (10) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which

to file specific written objections with the Court. See also Rule 8(b), Rules Governing

Section 2254 Proceedings. Thereafter, the parties have ten (10) days within which to file

a response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to de

novo consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th

Cir. 2003)(en banc).

DATED: February 11, 2008 _____________________________________

JAY R. IRWIN 

S:\Drafts\OutBox\07-0870-r RR 08 01 04 re HC Moot Dismiss FTP NCA.wpd United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:07-cv-00870-EHC Document 23 Filed 02/12/08 Page 5 of 5