Opinion
CIVIL DOCKET NO. 1:21-CV-00149 SEC P
03-24-2021
CARLOS ANYONA RANGONDI #A213-240-362, Plaintiff v. CHAD WOLF, Defendants
JUDGE DAVID C. JOSEPH
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") (ECF No. 3) filed by pro se Petitioner Carlos Anyona Rangondi ("Rangondi"). Rangondi is a detainee in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") detained at the LaSalle ICE Processing Center in Jena, Louisiana. He seeks his release from custody due to prolonged detention and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Because Rangondi has failed to comply with the Court's Order (ECF No. 11), his Petition (ECF No. 1) should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
I. Background
Rangondi is a native and citizen of Kenya. ECF No. 1 at 25. He was ordered removed on September 24, 2020. ECF No. 3-1 at 1. His appeal is currently pending with the Board of Immigration Appeals. Id.
Rangondi alleges that he suffers from physical and mental impairments including pericarditis and post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD") and depression. ECF No. 3 at 3. Rangondi claims that these conditions are "designated by the CDC as high-risk factors" with respect to the pandemic. Id.
Rangondi was ordered to amend his Petition by March 15, 2021 to provide additional information to support his claim. ECF No. 11. To date, no amended petition has been filed. Also, the Court notes that the latest notice mailed to Rangondi was returned to sender (ECF No. 15), and ICE's online detainee locator service shows no results for Rangondi's alien registration number.
II. Law and Analysis
A district court may dismiss an action for the plaintiff's failure to prosecute or to comply with any order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). A court possesses the inherent authority to dismiss the action sua sponte. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). "The power to invoke this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts." Id. at 629-30. Rangondi has failed to comply with the Court's Order (ECF No. 11) to amend his Petition, and he has not requested an extension of time within which to comply.
III. Conclusion
Because Rangondi has failed to comply with the Court's Order (ECF No. 11), IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Petition (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), a party may file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service, unless the Court grants an extension of time to file objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). A party may also respond to another party's objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service of those objections, again unless the Court grants an extension of time to file a response to objections.
No other briefs may be filed without leave of court, which will only be granted for good cause. A party's failure to timely file written objections to this Report and Recommendation will bar a party from later challenging factual or legal conclusions adopted by the District Judge, except if the challenge asserts "plain error."
SIGNED on Wednesday, March 24, 2021.
/s/_________
JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE