Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05718/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05718-0/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

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARAN JIT SINGH, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

)

JOHN ASHCROFT, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

____________________________________)

CV F 04-5718 OWW WMW HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE

DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY

WITH LOCAL RULE 83-183 

Petitioner, at least formerly in the custody of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (BICE) and proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition alleges that the continued detention of Petitioner

violates his substantive and procedural due process rights under the Due Process Clause of the

Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and is a violation of Respondent’s statutory authority. 

Pursuant to the court’s order, Respondent filed a response to the petition on July 22, 2004.

On January 27, 2005, the court entered findings and recommendations in this case,

recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. On February 7, 2005, the

copy of the findings and recommendations mailed to Petitioner was returned with the notation,

“RETURN TO SENDER - NOT IN CUSTODY.” Petitioner has not provided the court with a

Case 1:04-cv-05718-OWW -WMW Document 16 Filed 05/02/05 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

change of address since that time and has not responded to the findings and recommendations.

issued by the court.

Local Rule 11-110 provides that a “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

Local Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of

any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.@ District courts have the

inherent power to control their dockets and Ain the exercise of that power, they may impose

sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth.,

782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a

party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with

local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)(dismissal for

noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)

(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v.

U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)(dismissal for failure to comply with court

order). 

In this case, Petitioner has failed to comply with Local Rule 83-183(b), which provides as

follows:

A party, appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and opposing parties

advised as to his or her current address. If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona

by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the

Court and opposing parties within sixty (60) days thereafter of a current address, the

Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

As stated above, the copy of the findings and recommendations mailed to Petitioner was returned 

on February 7, 2005 with the notation, “RETURN TO SENDER - NOT IN CUSTODY.” Sixty

days have now passed and Petitioner has not notified the court of a change of address. It is

impossible for this case to continue without the participation of Petitioner. Further, the fact that

Petitioner’s copy of the findings and recommendations was returned with an indication that

Petitioner is no longer in custody provides a rational explanation basis for the court to believe

that Petitioner no longer wishes to proceed with this litigation. Accordingly, the court will

recommend dismissal of this case without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to renew this action

Case 1:04-cv-05718-OWW -WMW Document 16 Filed 05/02/05 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

should he desire to do so. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be

DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to renew this action for failure to comply

with Local Rule 83-183(b). 

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States District

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of

the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with

the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

objections. The court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2005 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05718-OWW -WMW Document 16 Filed 05/02/05 Page 3 of 3