Opinion
ED CV 24-911-MRA(E)
06-21-2024
PHUNG HOANG TRAN, Petitioner, v. FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, ET AL., Respondents.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES F. EICK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Monica Ramirez Almadani, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C, section 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
PROCEEDINGS
Petitioner filed a "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, etc." on April 26, 2024. The Petition sought Petitioner's release from immigration detention. On May 29, 2024, the "Federal Defendants," i.e., Respondents, filed a "Response to Petition, etc." ("the Response"), which represented that Petitioner was released on or about May 15, 2024.
On May 30, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Minute Order requiring that Petitioner file a Reply to the Response on or before June 20, 2024. The Minute Order cautioned that "[flailure to file a timely Reply may result in the denial and dismissal of the Petition." Petitioner failed to file a Reply within the allotted time. Additionally, beginning June 3, 2024, mail sent to Petitioner at his address of record has been returned to the Court undelivered.
DISCUSSION
The Court should deny and dismiss the Petition without prejudice because of mootness, Petitioner's failure to prosecute, and Petitioner's failure to keep this Court apprised of Petitioner's current address.
A federal court's jurisdiction is limited to cases or controversies. U.S, Const, art. III, § 2,- see also Iron Arrow Honor Society v. Heckler, 464 U.S, 67, 70 (1983) (discussing same). "[A] federal court has no authority 'to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.'" Church of Scientology of Cal, v. United States, 506 U.S, 9, 12 (1992) (quoting Mills v. Greeen, 159 U.S, 651, 653 (1895)). "If an event occurs that prevents the court from granting effective relief, the claim is moot and must be dismissed." American Rivers v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 126 F, 3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted); see also Church of Scientology of Cal, v. United States, 506 U.S, at 12 (a case becomes moot when it is "impossible for the court to grant 'any effectual relief whatever' to a prevailing party," quoting Mills, 159 U.S, at 653). Where an agency has performed the action sought in the litigation, a federal court "lacks the ability to grant effective relief, and the claim is moot." Rosemere Neighborhood Ass'n v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 581 F, 3d 1169, 1173 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal quotations omitted).
In the present case, Petitioner has received the relief (release from immigration detention) sought in the Petition. Therefore, the Petition should be denied and dismissed as moot. "There is an exception to mootness . . . for situations that are capable of repetition, yet evading review." See United States v. Brandau, 578 F, 3d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal quotations omitted). However, the record does not reflect any plausible basis for the application of this exception in the present case.
The Petition also should be denied and dismissed without prejudice because of Petitioner's failure to prosecute and failure to keep this Court apprised of his current address. See Carey v. King, 856 F, 2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988) (pro se civil rights plaintiff's failure to advise court of change in address warrants dismissal without prejudice); L.R. 41-6 (authorizing dismissal of an action fourteen days after the service date of undelivered mail where a party proceeding pro se has failed to keep the court apprised of the pro se party's current address); see also Fed, R, Civ, P, 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S, 626, 629-30 (1962) (court has inherent power to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases by dismissing actions for failure to prosecute). The Court has considered the factors recited in Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F, 2d 1258, 1260-62 (9th Cir.), cert, denied, 506 U.S, 915 (1992), and has concluded that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. In particular, any less drastic alternative would not be effective under the circumstances of this case.
RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an Order: (1) accepting and adopting this Report and Recommendation; and (2) directing that Judgment be entered dismissing the action without prejudice.
NOTICE
Reports and Recommendations are not appealable to the Court of Appeals, but may be subject to the right of any party to file objections as provided in the Local Rules Governing the Duties of Magistrate Judges and review by the District Judge whose initials appear in the docket number. No notice of appeal pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should be filed until entry of the judgment of the District Court.