Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-4_19-cv-01155/USCOURTS-alnd-4_19-cv-01155-0/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 (federa

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

MIDDLE DIVISION

NHAN NGUYEN-NGOC,

Petitioner,

v.

MR. BENNER, Field Director, et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

4:19-cv-01155-RDP-SGC

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On November 20, 2019, the Magistrate Judge entered a report 

recommending this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241, be dismissed without prejudice.1(Doc. 9). Although the report 

advised the parties of the right to object, no objections have been filed.

The Magistrate Judge’s report recommended that the petition be denied 

because, although the petitioner blames the respondents for not removing him in a 

timely manner, multiple delays are due to the petitioner’s refusal to 

cooperate in the removal process. (Doc. 6-1 at 3). The record reveals that, despite 

difficulties surrounding Petitioner’s participation in obtaining travel documents, 

Respondent has managed to obtain those documents from Vietnam. (Doc. # 6-1 at 

 

1 The report and recommendation, mailed to Petitioner at his address of record, was not returned 

to the court as undeliverable. However, because the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

website reflects Petitioner was transferred to a different facility, on December 11, 2019, the 

Magistrate Judge directed the Clerk to send a copy of the report and recommendation to the new

facility. (Doc. 10). 

FILED

 2020 Jan-13 AM 08:48

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 4:19-cv-01155-RDP-SGC Document 11 Filed 01/13/20 Page 1 of 2
2

3-4, Doc. # 8 at 14). Petitioner’s own Affidavit Under Penalty of Perjury confirms 

that he acted to prevent his removal by refusing to board a plane arranged for him 

by Respondent. (Docs. 8 at 3). Because it is undisputed Respondent has obtained 

travel documents for Petitioner, there is no reason to believe that, with Petitioner’s 

cooperation, he will not be removed imminently.2(See Doc. 6-1 at 3-4).

After de novo review of the entire file in this matter, including the report and

recommendation, the court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s report and 

ACCEPTS her recommendation. Accordingly, the claims presented in this matter 

are due to be denied and dismissed without prejudice.

A separate order will be entered.

DONE and ORDERED this January 10, 2020.

_________________________________

R. DAVID PROCTOR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

2 There are no disputed facts which are evident from the parties’ submissions. Therefore, this is not like the 

situation in Singh v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 18-12915 (11th Cir. Dec. 23, 2019). 

Case 4:19-cv-01155-RDP-SGC Document 11 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 2