Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01837/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01837-0/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 (Federal)

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Tahiru Bashir,

Petitioner

-vsMichael Donahue, et al.,

Respondents.

CV-16-1837-PHX-JAT (JFM)

Report & Recommendation 

on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

I. MATTER UNDER CONSIDERATION

Petitioner, incarcerated at the time in the Federal Detention Center, Eloy, Arizona, 

filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241on March 8, 

2007 (#1) challenging his continued detention pending removal to Jordan. On May 22, 

2007, Respondent filed his Suggestion of Mootness (#7). The Petitioner's Petition is 

now ripe for consideration. Accordingly, the undersigned makes the following proposed 

findings of fact, report, and recommendation pursuant to Rule 8(b), Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases, Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) 

and Rule 72.2(a)(2), Local Rules of Civil Procedure. 

II. RELEVANT FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 9, 2016, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). On June 20, 2016, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition 

(Doc. 3), challenging his detention in the Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona, while 

awaiting removal to Ghana. Petitioner’s Petition alleges that he was ordered removed on 

December 9, 2016, and has been detained more than 180 days. He alleges he has sought 

to facilitate his removal, but has remained in detention. (Amend. Petition Doc. 3 at 4.)

Case 2:16-cv-01837-JAT Document 18 Filed 10/12/16 Page 1 of 6
2

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

The Court’s Notice of Assignment, issued June 9, 2016 (Doc. 2) warned 

Petitioner that his case could be dismissed if he did not file a notice of change of address 

if his address changed. The Court’s Service Order entered September 8, 2016 (Doc. 8) 

warned Petitioner that failure to file to a Notice of Change of Address immediately upon 

any such change “may result in the dismissal of this action.” (Id. at 2.) Neither of these 

documents was returned undeliverable.

On September 19, 2016, mail from the Court to Petitioner was returned 

undeliverable, indicating Petitioner had been released from custody. (Doc. 15.) On 

September 20, 2016, Respondents filed a Notice of Deportation and Suggestion of 

Mootness (Doc. 12), with documents reflecting Petitioner’s deportation to Ghana on or 

about September 13, 2016. Petitioner has not filed a notice of change of address, and the 

Court has no other addresses for Petitioner known to it.

On September 22, 2016 , the Court issued an Order (Doc. 16) giving Petitioner 

fourteen days to either: (1) file a notice of change of address; or (2) show cause why his 

Petition should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute in light of his failure to file a 

Notice of Change of Address as previously ordered. That Order further gave Petitioner 

fourteen days to show cause why his Petition should not be dismissed as moot in light of 

his apparent release from custody. Copies of that order were mailed to Petitioner at his 

address of record but have been returned undeliverable (Doc. 17). Petitioner has not 

responded. 

III. APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS

A. MOOTNESS OF HABEAS PETITION

“Article III of the Constitution limits federal ‘Judicial Power,’ that is, federalcourt jurisdiction, to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” U.S. Parole Commission v. 

Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 395, 100 S.Ct. 1202, 1208 (1980). This limitation restricts the 

jurisdiction of the federal courts to cases where there is a possible judicial resolution. Id. 

A moot action is not subject to a judicial resolution.

Case 2:16-cv-01837-JAT Document 18 Filed 10/12/16 Page 2 of 6
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

A moot action is one in which the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the 

outcome. The test for mootness is whether the court can give a party any effective relief 

in the event that it decides the matter on the merits in their favor. “That is, whether the 

court can ‘undo’ the effects of the alleged wrongdoing.” Reimers v. Oregon, 863 F.2d 

630, 632 (9th Cir. 1989). 

A habeas petition may be rendered moot following a subsequent release from 

custody, absent other, collateral consequences that flow from the complained of 

imprisonment. Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624 (1982). While the existence of such 

collateral consequences is irrebuttably presumed in some habeas challenges to criminal 

convictions, see e.g., Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968); Chacon v. Wood, 36 F.3d 

1459 (9th Cir. 1994), no such presumption applies to habeas petitions challenging 

deportation orders.

Here, Petitioner does not challenge his underlying removal order, but merely his 

continued detention pending the execution of that order. However, although that 

detention has terminated, Petitioner has been deported and is precluded from re-entry 

into the country. Under those circumstances, there may yet remain relief which may be 

granted. Reimers, supra. Moreover, Petitioner has not yet been heard from on whether 

the matter is moot. 

However, in light of Petitioner’s failure to prosecute, the Court need not resolve 

that issue to dispose of this matter.

B. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

“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.” Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 

630-631 (1962). “Accordingly, when circumstances make such action appropriate, a 

District Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute even without affording 

Case 2:16-cv-01837-JAT Document 18 Filed 10/12/16 Page 3 of 6
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

notice of its intention to do so or providing an adversary hearing before acting. Whether 

such an order can stand on appeal depends not on power but on whether it was within the 

permissible range of the court's discretion.” Id. at 633.

In determining whether an abuse of discretion has occurred, a number of factors 

are relevant, including the plaintiff's diligence, the trial court's need to manage its docket, 

the danger of prejudice to the party suffering the delay, the availability of alternate 

sanctions, and the existence of warning to the party occasioning the delay. See, e.g., 

Hamilton v. Neptune Orient Lines, Ltd., 811 F.2d 498, 499 (9th Cir.1987).

Despite having been given specific notice (Notice of Assignment, Doc. 2; Service 

Order, Doc. 8) of his obligation to file a notice of change of address, and an order (Doc. 

16) specifically directing him to do so, Petitioner has failed to keep his current address 

on file with the Court.

It is the duty of a party who has filed a pro se action to keep the Court apprised of 

his or her current address and to comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. This 

Court does not have an affirmative obligation to locate Petitioner. "A party, not the 

district court, bears the burden of keeping the court apprised of any changes in his 

mailing address." Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988). Petitioner’s 

failure to keep the Court informed of his new address constitutes failure to prosecute.

Petitioner has failed to prosecute this action, and dismissal is therefore within the 

discretion of the Court. Link v. Wabash R. Co., supra. In the instant case, Petitioner 

appears to have abandoned this action upon his release from custody. Petitioner has had 

over four months since his release to file a notice of change of address. Further delay to 

the Court and to Respondent is not warranted. Also, Petitioner has received adequate 

warning of the potential of such action, and in light of Petitioner’s refusal to respond to 

the Court, less onerous sanctions will be ineffective. 

IV. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

No Ruling Required - Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, requires 

Case 2:16-cv-01837-JAT Document 18 Filed 10/12/16 Page 4 of 6
5

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

that in habeas cases the “district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability 

when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” Such certificates are required in 

cases concerning detention arising “out of process issued by a State court”, or in a 

proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 attacking a federal criminal judgment or sentence. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). 

This case arises under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and does not attack a State court 

detention. Accordingly, no ruling on a certificate of appealability is required, and no 

recommendation thereon will be offered.

V. RECOMMENDATION

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's Amended Petition 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed June 20, 2016 (Doc. 3) be DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. 

VI. 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), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties 

shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation 

within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See also Rule 8(b), Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Proceedings. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen (14) days 

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

findings or recommendations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a 

party's right to de novo consideration of the issues, see United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc), and will constitute a waiver of a party's 

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

to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-

Case 2:16-cv-01837-JAT Document 18 Filed 10/12/16 Page 5 of 6
6

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

47 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Dated: October 11, 2016

16-1837r RR 16 10 10 on HC.docx

James F. Metcalf

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:16-cv-01837-JAT Document 18 Filed 10/12/16 Page 6 of 6