Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00255/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00255-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Craig Apker
Respondent
Anthony Alexander Galasso
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Anthony Alexander Galasso, 

 Petitioner, 

vs. 

Craig Apker, 

 Respondent. 

 CV 12-255-TUC-DCB (JR) 

 

 

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 

 

 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Anthony Alexander Galasso’s Petition 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In 

accordance with the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the 

District of Arizona and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this matter was referred to the 

Magistrate Judge for report and recommendation. As explained below, the 

Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after an independent review of 

the record, dismiss the Petition with prejudice because Galasso has abandoned this 

action after his release from prison. 

I. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

 In the Petition, Galasso raises three claims related to disciplinary action taken 

against him while he was incarcerated in the Federal Detention Center in Tucson, 

Case 4:12-cv-00255-DCB Document 14 Filed 02/08/13 Page 1 of 5
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Arizona. He claims prison officials violated his rights to due process when they 

failed to follow Bureau of Prisons’ policy and federal law during disciplinary 

proceedings initiated against him for making and possessing intoxicants after 

corrections officers discovered a pant leg that had been altered for use as a container 

for production of alcohol. Petition, pp. 4-6. 

 By Order dated April 11, 2012 (Doc. 4), the District Court warned Petitioner 

that he must “file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule 

83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure,” and that “[f]ailure to comply may 

result in dismissal of this action.” The docket reflects that the Court’s last order 

(Doc. 10) was returned as undeliverable with a notation that Petitioner was no longer 

at the address reflected in the Court’s docket. The Court therefore issued an Order on 

January 16, 2013, requiring Petitioner to submit notice of his current address within 

15 days and reiterated that the failure to do so could result in the dismissal of this 

action (Doc. 12). That order was also returned as undeliverable. 

 Not having any information about the Petitioner’s whereabouts, on February 

8, 2013, the Court conducted an inmate search on both the Arizona state and Federal 

prison websites. No information was discovered on the State website. However, the 

Federal Bureau of Prisons site reflects that Galasso, register number 04886-015, was 

released on January 18, 2013. Bureau of Prisons-Inmate Locator, 

http://bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=IDSearch&needingMoreList=

false&IDType=IRN&IDNumber=04886-015&x=84&y=14 (last visited February 8, 

2013). 

Case 4:12-cv-00255-DCB Document 14 Filed 02/08/13 Page 2 of 5
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Failure to Prosecute

 “The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution had 

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, 630-31 (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. 

 Factors relevant to a determination of whether the court abuses it discretion in 

dismissing for lack of prosecution include the plaintiff’s lack of 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 

causing the delay. Hamilton v. Neptune Orient Lines, Ltd., 811 F.2d 498, 499 (9th

Cir. 1987). 

 Here, the Court provided Galasso notice of his obligation to file a notice of 

change of address and another order specifically ordering him to do so or risk the 

dismissal of this action. Despite these notices, Galasso has failed to notify the Court 

of his current address. Under the circumstances, the Court does not have an 

Case 4:12-cv-00255-DCB Document 14 Filed 02/08/13 Page 3 of 5
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

affirmative obligation to locate Galasso. “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). Galasso’s failure to provide his current 

address constitutes a failure to prosecute. 

 As Galasso has failed to prosecute this action, it is within the discretion of the 

Court to dismiss this action. Link, 370 U.S. at 630-31. It appears that Galasso 

abandoned the case upon his release from custody. He has had ample time and notice 

to provide the Court with a notice of a change of address. Because he has failed to 

do so, less onerous sanctions would be ineffective. 

III. RECOMMENDATION 

 Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the 

District Court, after its independent review, deny and dismiss Galasso’s Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1). 

 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, 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 District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a) and 6(e) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen (14) days 

within which to file a response to the objections. If any objections are filed, this 

Case 4:12-cv-00255-DCB Document 14 Filed 02/08/13 Page 4 of 5
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

action should be designated case number: CV 12-255-TUC-DCB. Failure to timely 

file objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate Judge may 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 this 8th day of February, 2013. 

Case 4:12-cv-00255-DCB Document 14 Filed 02/08/13 Page 5 of 5