Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00511/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00511-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Philip Crawford
Respondent
Walid Habbas
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Walid Habbas, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Philip Crawford, Director ICE Field

Office,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0511-PHX-MHM (JI)

ORDER

On March 8, 2007, Petitioner filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his continued detention pending removal to Jordan (Doc. 1).

Petitioner alleges that he was ordered removed on August 23, 2006, and has been detained

more than 180 days. On May 22, 2007, Respondent filed his Suggestion of Mootness in

which he indicated that Petitioner had been released from custody on March 19, 2007 (Doc.

7). Since his release, Petitioner has not filed a notice of change of address. On May 15, 2007,

mail from the Clerk of the Court to Petitioner was returned undeliverable (Doc. 10). The

matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin who has issued a Report

and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending dismissing without prejudice Petitioner's

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for failure to prosecute (Doc. 11). Judge Irwin’s R&R

also was returned to the court as undeliverable (Doc. 12). 

Case 2:07-cv-00511-MHM Document 13 Filed 09/17/07 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

The district court must review the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations de

novo if objection is made but not otherwise. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)("[a] judge of the court shall

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings

or recommendations to which objection is made"). 

“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 status 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.

Petitioner has failed to prosecute the action since his March 19, 2007 release. The

Magistrate Judge has recommended that the Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(Doc. 1) be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. This Court agrees with Judge

Irwin’s recommendation. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc.

11) in its entirety as the Order of the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed

without prejudice. 

 DATED this 14th day of September, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00511-MHM Document 13 Filed 09/17/07 Page 2 of 2