Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01338/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01338-0/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

- 1 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff/Respondent

-vsJesus Felix Payan,

Defendant/Movant

 CV-09-1338-PHX-EHC (JRI)

 CR-08-0193-PHX-EHC

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

On Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or

Correct Sentence Pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2255

I. MATTER UNDER CONSIDERATION

Movant, incarcerated at the time in the Federal Correctional Institute, Big Spring,

Texas, filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2255 on June 22, 2009 (#1) challenging his conviction in the U.S. District Court for the

District of Arizonan December 21, 2009, mail from the Court to the Movant was returned

undeliverable (#6). 

The Movant's Motion is now ripe for consideration. Accordingly, the undersigned

makes the following proposed findings of fact, report, and recommendation pursuant to Rule

10, Rules Governing Section 2255 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 22, 2009, Movant filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (#1), challenging his conviction in this court. Movant asserts

three grounds for relief: 

(1) he alleges that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel based on

counsel’s alleged failure (a) to file a notice of appeal as Movant directed him,

Case 2:09-cv-01338-EHC Document 10 Filed 02/05/10 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 -

and (b) to raise objections to Movant’s “PSI”;

(2) he alleges that a detainer has been lodged against him by Immigration and

Customs Enforcement (ICE) although Movant contends that he is not a

deportable alien, has not committed an aggravated felony or violent offense,

and he was “forced” to plead guilty by his attorney; and 

(3) he contends that he did not agree to be deported under the terms of his plea

agreement and he claims that no one told him that he would be deported if he

pleaded guilty.

Service was ordered, and on September 21, 2009, Respondent filed its Response (#4),

arguing that Movant’s claims are not cognizable in this proceeding, procedurally defaulted,

or without merit.

Movant has not replied, and the time to reply expired on October 21, 2009. (See

Order #3 at 3.)

On December 30, 2009, mail form the Clerk of the Court to Movant was returned

undeliverable, indicating that Petitioner had been released on October 19, 2009 (#6). Movant

has not filed a notice of change of address. 

The Notice of Assignment, filed June 22, 2009 (#2) warned Movant “You must file

a Notice of Change of Address if your address changes.” The Service Order, filed August

11, 2009 (#3) provided:

Movant must file and serve a notice of a change of address 10 days

before a move is effective, if practicable. See LRCiv 83.3(d). Movant

must not include a motion for other relief with a notice of change of

address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal.

(Id. at 2.)

On January 7, 2010, the undersigned issued an Order (#8) giving Movant seven days

to either: (1) file a notice of change of address; or (2) show cause why his Motion to Vacate

should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute in light of his failure to file a Notice of

Change of Address as previously ordered. Copies of that order were mailed to Movant at his

address of record but have been returned undeliverable (#9). Movant has not responded. 

Case 2:09-cv-01338-EHC Document 10 Filed 02/05/10 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 -

III. APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS

“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

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 of his obligation to file a notice of change

of address, and an order specifically directing him to do so, Movant 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). Movant’s failure to keep the Court informed

of his new address constitutes failure to prosecute.

Movant 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, Movant appears

to have abandoned this action upon his release from custody. Movant has had over three

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

Case 2:09-cv-01338-EHC Document 10 Filed 02/05/10 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 -

to Respondent is not warranted. Also, Movant 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. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Ruling Required - Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases, requires that in

habeas cases the “district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters

a final order adverse to the applicant.” Such certificates are required in cases concerning

detention arising “out of process issued by a State court”, or in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 attacking a federal criminal judgment or sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). 

Here, the Motion to Vacate is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The

recommendations if accepted will result in Movant’s Motion to Vacate being resolved

adversely to Movant. Accordingly, a decision on a certificate of appealability is required.

Applicable Standards - The standard for issuing a certificate of appealability

(“COA”) is whether the applicant has “made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “Where a district court has rejected the

constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is

straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the

district court=s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “When the district court denies a habeas petition on

procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA

should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable

whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists

of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural

ruling.” Id.

Standard Not Met - Assuming the recommendations herein are followed in the

district court’s judgment, that decision will be on procedural grounds. The undersigned finds

that jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its

Case 2:09-cv-01338-EHC Document 10 Filed 02/05/10 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 -

procedural ruling. Accordingly, the certificate of appealability should be denied.

V. RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Movant's Motion to Vacate, Set

Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed June 22, 2009 (#1) be

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability be

DENIED.

VI. 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 fourteen (14) 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 10, Rules Governing

Section 2255 Proceedings. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen (14) days within which to

file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to any findings or

recommendations 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), and will constitute a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the

findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007). 

DATED: February 5, 2010 _____________________________________

JAY R. IRWIN 

S:\Drafts\OutBox\09-1338-001r RR 10 01 21 re Dismiss FTP.wpd United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:09-cv-01338-EHC Document 10 Filed 02/05/10 Page 5 of 5