Opinion
C. A. 5:24-183-JDA-KDW
05-30-2024
Carlos Adrian Plaza Estacio, Petitioner, v. Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Kaymani D. West United States Magistrate Judge
Carlos Adrian Plaza Estacio (“Petitioner”) proceeding pro se, filed this Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while incarcerated at FCI Williamsburg.Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such petitions for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends the district judge dismiss the Petition in this case without prejudice.
Petitioner originally filed his Petition in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on October 25, 2023, and this matter was transferred to this court on January 12, 2024.
Petitioner filed a document titled “Writ of Habeas Corpus Request for Declaratory Judgment,” in which he generally challenges the application of earned time credits to his sentence. ECF No. 1. Petitioner's Petition, however, did not name a Respondent, or provide any information about his conviction, sentence, or whether he took any steps to appeal the actions taken by the Bureau of Prisons concerning his earned time credits. Accordingly, the court issued an order on January 30, 2024, directing Petitioner to fully complete a form § 2241 habeas petition. ECF No. 8. Petitioner was warned that the failure to comply with the court's order may subject the case to dismissal. Id. The January 30 proper form order was mailed to Petitioner at the address he provided to the court, ECF No. 14, and was not returned to the court as undeliverable. Accordingly, Petitioner was presumed to have received the proper form order. However, he did not file any of the documents necessary to bring his case into proper form, nor did he submit any response to the court's order.
On April 23, 2024, the court issued a second order directing Petitioner to fully respond to the court's proper form order and to file a response to the included special interrogatories. ECF No. 21.Petitioner was again warned if he failed to bring the case into proper form within the time permitted his case may be subject to dismissal. Id. The proper form order was not returned to the court as undeliverable, and Petitioner is presumed to have received the order. The time for Petitioner to file a response to the April 23 order ended on May 14, 2024, and Petitioner did not respond to the court's order.
The special interrogatories directed Petitioner to provide the court with information about his conviction, sentence, and to provide information about the decision he was challenging, and whether he took any actions to challenge the decision. ECF No. 21-1.
It is well established that a district court has authority to dismiss a case for 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.” See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). In addition to its inherent authority, this court may also sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Id. at 630.
In considering whether to dismiss an action pursuant to Rule 41(b), the court should consider the following factors:
(1) the degree of personal responsibility on the part of the plaintiff;
(2) the amount of prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay;
(3) the [plaintiff's history of] proceeding in a dilatory fashion; and,
(4) the effectiveness of sanctions less drastic than dismissal.Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978) (quoting McCargo v. Hedrick, 545 F.2d 393, 396 (4th Cir. 1976)) (internal quotation marks omitted). These four factors “‘are not a rigid fourpronged test'” and whether to dismiss depends on the particular circumstances of the case. Attkisson v. Holder, 925 F.3d 606, 625 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989)). For example, in Ballard, the court noted the Magistrate Judge's explicit warning to a litigant that a failure to obey his order would result in a recommendation that the district court dismiss his case. Ballard, 882 F.2d at 95-96. The court explained this warning was an important factor supporting dismissal. Id.
The Rule 41(b) factors weigh in favor of dismissal. Petitioner is personally responsible for his failure to comply with the court's proper form orders. Further, Petitioner was specifically warned his case may be dismissed if he failed to bring his case into proper form. See ECF Nos. 12. 21. Despite having multiple opportunities to provide the court with the requested information, Petitioner failed to do so. The undersigned finds Petitioner's lack of response to the court's orders, despite being warned of the possible dismissal of his action if he failed to respond, indicates Petitioner no longer intends to pursue this action. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Ballard, 882 F.2d at 95. The undersigned recommends this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. [I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
Post Office Box 2317
Florence, South Carolina 29503
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).