Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01496/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01496-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
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

YUEAI FENG,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, et al.,

Respondents.

1:15-cv-01496-SMS (HC) 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

 (Doc. 17)

This matter is before the Court, sua sponte, on Petitioner’s failure to prosecute. On

September 8, 2015, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241. 

Doc. 1. Therein, Petitioner alleged unlawful detention by the United States Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement. For the reasons that follow, the Court dismisses this petition without 

prejudice.

On March 8, 2016, the Court issued an order directing Respondents to file a response in 

the form of an answer or motion to dismiss within sixty days. Doc. 13. If Respondents filed an 

answer, Petitioner could have filed a reply within thirty days; otherwise, the petition and answer 

would be deemed submitted at the expiration of thirty days. If Respondents filed a motion to 

dismiss, Petition was required to file an opposition or notice of opposition within twenty-one 

Case 1:15-cv-01496-SMS Document 18 Filed 11/08/16 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

days; otherwise, the motion to dismiss would be deemed submitted at the expiration of thirty 

days. On the same day, the Court served a copy of the March 8, 2016 order to Petitioner by 

sending a copy to the address provided. On March 10, 2016, Respondents filed a motion to 

dismiss requesting dismissal as Petitioner was no longer in immigration custody. Doc. 17. A

copy of the motion was sent to Petitioner at the same address provided to the Court. 

On March 24, 2016, the Court’s March 8, 2016 order was returned with notice that 

Petitioner was no longer in custody and therefore the order was undeliverable. To date, the Court 

has not received Petitioner’s notice of change of address. Additionally, no opposition or notice of 

opposition to the motion to dismiss has been filed. 

Local Rule 183 provides, in relevant part: 

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-three (63) days thereafter of a 

current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice 

for failure to prosecute.

L.R. 183(c). But before dismissing a case for lack of prosecution, the Court must weigh the 

following 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 defendants; (4) the public policy 

favoring the disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.”

In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). And “[a]lthough beneficial to 

the reviewing court, a district court is not required to make specific findings on each of the 

essential factors.” Id. (citation omitted). 

Turning then to the factors, the Court finds the first, second, third and fifth factors weigh 

in favor of dismissal, while only the fourth factor weighs against dismissal. Since the March 8, 

2016 order was returned undeliverable, nearly eight months (227 days) have passed. Petitioner 

Case 1:15-cv-01496-SMS Document 18 Filed 11/08/16 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

still has not advised the Court or Respondents of her current address. Surely, this is a hindrance 

to the public’s interest, including Respondents,’ in expeditious resolution of litigation and the 

Court’s need to manage its docket. And while the Court could take a less drastic route by 

providing notice to Petitioner about the possibility of dismissal of the case, this option is 

untenable given the lack of a current address. Thus, while public policy favors disposition of the

case on the merits—in this case without the benefit of Petitioner’s opposition—it is not enough to 

overcome the weight of dismissal. 

The Court will therefore exercise its power to dismiss this petition without prejudice for 

Petitioner’s failure to prosecute. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962) (“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.”)

(footnote omitted).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this petition be dismissed without 

prejudice. Respondents’ motion to dismiss is therefore MOOT. The Clerk of the Court is 

directed to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01496-SMS Document 18 Filed 11/08/16 Page 3 of 3