Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00424/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00424-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff/Respondent,

v. 

Agustin Cortes-Salcedo,

Defendant/Movant.

No. CV-13-0424-PHX-ROS (ESW) CR-12-1246-PHX-ROS

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE ROSLYN O. SILVER, SENIOR UNITED STATES 

DISTRICT JUDGE:

Pending before the Court is Agustin Cortes-Salcedo’s (“Movant”) “Amended 

Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in 

Federal Custody” (Doc. 8) (the “Amended Motion to Vacate”). For the reasons set forth 

below, the undersigned recommends that the Court dismiss without prejudice the 

Amended Motion to Vacate for failure to prosecute.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 3, 2013, the Court summarily dismissed the Amended Motion to 

Vacate. (Doc. 9). Movant appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

(Doc. 11). The Ninth Circuit appointed appellate counsel for Movant. (Doc. 13). On 

March 10, 2015, the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate vacating the Court’s September 3, 

2013 judgment and remanding the case to the Court for further proceedings. (Doc. 16). 

On March 25, 2015, the Court ordered the Government to answer Movant’s 

Amended Motion to Vacate and referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey 

Case 2:13-cv-00424-ROS Document 25 Filed 02/04/16 Page 1 of 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

for a Report and Recommendation.1 (Doc. 18 at 3). The Order required Movant to file 

and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule 83.3(d) of the Local 

Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 2). The Court warned Movant that failure to comply 

with that requirement may result in dismissal of this action. (Id.). 

The Government and Movant’s appellate counsel2 have stated that Movant was

released from custody in December 2014 and was deported to Mexico. (Doc. 20; Doc. 23 

at 3). Movant’s appellate counsel notified the Court that Movant’s last known address is 

the federal prison where Movant served his sentence. (Doc. 20). 

On January 19, 2016, the Court ordered that by February 3, 2016, Movant must 

either (i) file a notice of change of address or (ii) show cause why this case should not be 

dismissed for failure to file and serve a notice of change of address. (Doc. 24 at 2). The 

Court’s Order advised Movant that failure to timely comply with the Order may result in 

the dismissal of this action without further notice. (Id.). The Clerk of Court mailed the 

Order to Movant’s last known address. As of the date of this Report and 

Recommendation, Movant has not responded to the Court’s January 2016 Order. 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS

“A party, not the district court, bearsthe burden of keeping the court apprised of any

changes in his mailing address.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988). A 

party’s failure to keep the Court informed of his or her address constitutes failure to

prosecute. See id. at 1440-41.

A federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for 

failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962). In 

appropriate circumstances, the Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute 

even without notice or hearing. Id. at 633. In determining whether Movant’s failure to 

1 The matter was reassigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge on May 18, 2015. (Doc. 22).

2 Movant is acting pro se in this Section 2255 proceeding. The Court denied the “Motion for Determination of Counsel” (Doc. 17) filed by Movant’s appellate counsel. 

(Doc. 19).

- 2 -

 

Case 2:13-cv-00424-ROS Document 25 Filed 02/04/16 Page 2 of 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

prosecute warrants dismissal of the 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 [Respondent]; (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 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 

1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). “The first two of these factors favor the imposition of sanctions in 

most cases, while the fourth factor 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).

While the fourth factor above weighs against dismissal of this case, factors one 

through three above favor dismissal. Movant’s failure to keep the Court informed of 

his address prevents this case from proceeding. In addition, the Court warned Movant

multiple times that the Court may dismiss his case for failure to file and serve a notice 

of a change of address. (Doc. 7 at 2-3; Doc. 18 at 2; Doc. 19 at 3; and Doc. 24 at 2). 

Regarding the fifth factor, the undersigned finds that dismissing the case with prejudice 

would be unnecessarily harsh given the availability of the less drastic sanction of 

dismissal without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (dismissal for failure to prosecute 

operates as an adjudication upon the merits “[u]nless the court in its order for dismissal 

otherwise specifies”). 

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing discussion,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court dismiss without prejudice the Amended 

Motion to Vacate (Doc. 8) for failure to prosecute. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability be 

denied as the undersigned finds that jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether 

the Court was correct in its procedural ruling.3

3 “When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a [Certificate of Appealability] 

- 3 -

 

Case 2:13-cv-00424-ROS Document 25 Filed 02/04/16 Page 3 of 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 

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), Fed. R. Civ. P., the parties shall have fourteen 

days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file 

specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days 

within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to any 

factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s 

right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant 

to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Dated this 4th day of February, 2016. 

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.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

- 4 - 

Case 2:13-cv-00424-ROS Document 25 Filed 02/04/16 Page 4 of 4