Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00808/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00808-0/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 (federa

---

1

Bill Bateman is no longer the Warden of the Perry County

Correctional Facility. Accordingly, pursuant to the provisions of Rule

25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, David O. Streiff, as

Warden of that facility, is substituted for Bateman as a proper

Respondent in this action.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

NAZAR ALIDAN, :

 

Petitioner, :

vs. :

 CIVIL ACTION No. 06-00808-WS-B

DAVID O. STREIFF1, et al., :

 

Respondents. :

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is an action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2241 by Nazar

Alidan, a citizen and native of Iraq, who filed this action while

detained by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration

and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Perry County Correctional

Center in Uniontown, Alabama. (Doc. 1). Because Petitioner has

failed to prosecute this action, it is recommended that this action

be dismissed without prejudice. 

Petitioner filed his petition for habeas relief on November

27, 2006 (Doc. 1) and paid the required $5.00 filing fee (Doc. 2).

Subsequent thereto, a copy of the Court’s Order (Doc. 3) referring

this matter to the undersigned for report and recommendation was

mailed to Petitioner at his address of record, and on December 15,

2006, Petitioner’s copy of the Order was returned with the

notations “Refused” and “Return To Sender[;] Addressee Not At This

Case 2:06-cv-00808-WS-B Document 7 Filed 03/13/08 Page 1 of 4
2

In his petition, Alidan stated that in the event of his release,

he would reside with his wife and children at 1565 Bath Avenue,

Apartment 3F, Brooklyn, New York 11228, his residence since 1995.

However, the Court has been unable to confirm that Petitioner is,

indeed, residing at this address.

2

Facility.” (Doc. 4). As a result, the Court entered an Order,

dated January 29, 2007, directing all parties to provide the Court

with Petitioner’s forwarding address by February 28, 2007. (Doc.

5). Petitioner’s copy of the Court’s January 29, 2007 Order was

returned to the Court on February 6, 2007 with the notations

“Refused” and “Return To Sender[;] Addressee Not At This Facility”

(Doc. 6). Consequently, Court personnel contacted the Perry County

Correctional Center and learned that Petitioner was released on

December 11, 2006. Officials at the Perry County Correctional

Center do not have a forwarding address for Petitioner, and to

date, Petitioner has not taken any steps to update his address with

the Court.2 

Due to Petitioner's failure to prosecute this action and keep

the Court notified of his current address, and upon consideration

of the alternatives that are available to the Court, it is

recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice

pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as

no other lesser sanction will suffice. Link v. Wabash R. R., 370

U.S. 626, 630, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) (interpreting

Rule 41(b) not to restrict the court's inherent authority to

dismiss sua sponte an action for lack of prosecution); World Thrust

Case 2:06-cv-00808-WS-B Document 7 Filed 03/13/08 Page 2 of 4
3

Films, Inc. v. International Family Entertainment, Inc., 41 F.3d

1454, 1456-57 (11th Cir. 1995); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op,

864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989); Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d

1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458

(11th Cir. 1983). Accord Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 111

S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (ruling that federal courts'

inherent power to manage their own proceedings authorized the

imposition of attorney's fees and related expenses as a sanction);

Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1545-46 (11th

Cir.)(finding that the court’s inherent power to manage actions

before it permitted the imposition of fines), cert. denied, 510

U.S. 863, 114 S.Ct. 181, 126 L. Ed.2d 140 (1993). 

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to this Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 13th day of March, 2008.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00808-WS-B Document 7 Filed 03/13/08 Page 3 of 4
4

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything

in it must, within ten days of the date of service of this document, file

specific written objections with the clerk of court. Failure to do so

will bar a de novo determination by the district judge of anything in the

recommendation and will bar an attack, on appeal, of the factual findings

of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)©); Lewis v. Smith,

855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404

(5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en banc). The procedure for challenging the

findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge is set out in more

detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which provides that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a magistrate

judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a matter excepted by

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing a “Statement of Objection

to Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation” within ten days after

being served with a copy of the recommendation, unless a

different time is established by order. The statement of

objection shall specify those portions of the recommendation

to which objection is made and the basis for the objection.

The objecting party shall submit to the district judge, at the

time of filing the objection, a brief setting forth the

party’s arguments that the magistrate judge’s recommendation

should be reviewed de novo and a different disposition made.

It is insufficient to submit only a copy of the original brief

submitted to the magistrate judge, although a copy of the

original brief may be submitted or referred to and

incorporated into the brief in support of the objection.

Failure to submit a brief in support of the objection may be

deemed an abandonment of the objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a Court

of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment can be appealed.

2. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). Pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the magistrate judge finds

that the tapes and original records in this action are adequate for

purposes of review. Any party planning to object to this recommendation,

but unable to pay the fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial

determination that transcription is necessary is required before the

United States will pay the cost of the transcript.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00808-WS-B Document 7 Filed 03/13/08 Page 4 of 4