Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00579/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00579-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Phillip Crawford
Respondent
Joe Lesly Desire
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

SRM

1

 Petitioner’s supporting statement argues that his removal to a country with no functioning government would

violate due process. The Court, in its service Order (#3) did not list this as a substantive claim, but did note the adoption

of the REAL ID Act of 2005 which strips district courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges to orders of removal. (#3 at 1,

n. 1.) If Petitioner intended to litigate that claim in this proceeding, the claim would be subject to dismissal under the Act.

- 1 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joe Lesly Desire,

Petitioner

-vsPhillip Crawford,

Respondent(s)

CV-06-0579-PHX-SRB (JI)

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241

I. MATTER UNDER CONSIDERATION

Petitioner, incarcerated at the time of his Petition in the Eloy Detention Center in Eloy,

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

27, 2006 (#1). On June 7, 2006 Respondents filed a Notice re Suggestion of Mootness (#6)

relating that Petitioner was removed to Haiti. 

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

On February 27, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (#1), challenging his detention without bond while awaiting removal to

Haiti.1

 Petitioner’s Petition alleges that he is subject to a final order of removal, and that the

Case 2:06-cv-00579-SRB Document 9 Filed 07/03/06 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

- 2 -

stay of removal previously issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was lifted on July 15,

2005. Petitioner alleges that political unrest in Haiti makes his removal in the reasonably

foreseeable future unlikely. Service of the Petition was ordered on May 16, 2006 (#3). 

On June 7, 2006 Respondents filed a Notice re Suggestion of Mootness (#6) relating

that Petitioner has been removed to Haiti. On June 12, 2006, the undersigned issued an Order

(#7) giving Petitioner fifteen 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 fifteen days to show cause why his Petition should not be dismissed as moot in light

of his apparent release from custody. upon his removal Copies of that order were mailed to

Petitioner at his address of record. 

Petitioner has not responded. The copy of the order sent to Petitioner’s address of

record had been returned undeliverable (#8). 

III. APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS

A. MOOTNESS OF HABEAS PETITION

“Article III of the Constitution limits federal ‘Judicial Power,’ that is, federal-court

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.

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

Case 2:06-cv-00579-SRB Document 9 Filed 07/03/06 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

- 3 -

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. Under those circumstances, there

does not appear to remain relief which may be granted. Reimers, supra. However, 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 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 twice been given specific notice (Notice of Assignment, #2; Order, #3

at 2) of his obligation to file a notice of change of address, and an order (#7) specifically

Case 2:06-cv-00579-SRB Document 9 Filed 07/03/06 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

- 4 -

directing him to do so, Petitioner has failed to keep his current address on file with the Court.

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 two

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. RECOMMENDATION

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus, filed February 27, 2006 (#1) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for

failure to prosecute.

V. 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 ten (10) 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 ten (10) days within which to file a response

to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determinations 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).

DATED: July 3, 2006 _____________________________________

JAY R. IRWIN 

S:\Drafts\OutBox\06-0579-1r RR 06 06 30 re HC.wpd United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00579-SRB Document 9 Filed 07/03/06 Page 4 of 4