Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00215/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00215-1/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALIDAD ALIBABA AHADPOUR,

Petitioner,

v.

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00215-JDP

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS PETITION FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS

ECF No. 1

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

ASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE

Petitioner Alidad Alibab Ahadpour, a former federal detainee without counsel, seeks a 

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. On November 21, 2019, we ordered 

petitioner to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. ECF 

No. 6. On December 6, 2019, the order was returned to this court unserved with a notation that 

petitioner is no longer in federal immigration detention. Petitioner had until February 13, 2019 to 

update his address with the court and he has failed to do so. Having received neither any

objections to our order to show cause nor notice of an updated address, we recommend that this 

case be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Discussion

The court may dismiss a case for a petitioner’s failure to prosecute or failure to comply 

with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 

Case 1:19-cv-00215-DAD-JDP Document 8 Filed 02/26/20 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

403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court 

has duties to resolve disputes expeditiously and to avoid needless burden on the parties. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 1; Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002).

Here, petitioner has not complied with our order to show cause why his petition should 

not be dismissed. ECF No. 6. And he has not updated his address with the court, as required by 

the local rules. Local Rule 183(b) (“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-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the 

action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.”). Therefore, we find that petitioner has failed 

to prosecute his case and recommend its dismissal.

Certificate of Appealability

A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute right to appeal a district 

court’s dismissal of a petition; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253; Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). Rule 11 Governing Section 2254 

Cases requires a district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final 

order adverse to a petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 

F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). Where, as here, the court denies habeas relief on procedural 

grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate 

of appealability “if 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.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000). “Where a plain procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it 

to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in 

dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id. 

Here, reasonable jurists would not find our conclusion debatable or conclude that 

petitioner should proceed further. Thus, we recommend that the court decline to issue a 

certificate of appealability.

Case 1:19-cv-00215-DAD-JDP Document 8 Filed 02/26/20 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

Order

The clerk of court is directed to assign this case to a district judge who will review these 

findings and recommendations.

Findings and Recommendations

For the foregoing reasons, we recommend that the court dismiss this case for failure to 

prosecute. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the U.S. district judge presiding 

over the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within fourteen days of the 

service of the findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections to the 

findings and recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such 

objections must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” The presiding district judge will then review the findings and 

recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 206.

 

Case 1:19-cv-00215-DAD-JDP Document 8 Filed 02/26/20 Page 3 of 3