Sanchez v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director

[3] 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 JOHNNY SANCHEZ, Case No. 2:24-cv-02178-TMC-TLF 7 Petitioner, v. REPORT AND 8 RECOMMENDATION ICE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, 9 Noted for April 24, 2025 Respondent. [10] 11 Petitioner, Johnny Sanchez, proceeds unrepresented by counsel in this 28 12 U.S.C. § 2241 immigration habeas corpus action. Petitioner commenced this action on 13 December 20, 2024, by filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and a 14 proposed 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Dkt. 1. 15 On January 2, 2025, the Clerk’s Office mailed petitioner a “notice of filing 16 deficiency” informing petitioner that he had filed the incorrect IFP form, and that 17 petitioner was also required to submit a prison trust account statement. Dkt. 2. The 18 letter notified petitioner if he failed to correct the listed deficiencies by February 3, 2025, 19 it “may affect the status of your case, including dismissal of the action by the Court.” Id. 20 On January 8, 2025, the Clerk’s Office mailed petitioner an “amended notice of 21 filing deficiency” noting that petitioner had submitted the incorrect IFP form, providing 22 the correct IFP form, and noting that petitioner was not required to submit a prison trust 23 account statement for this matter as indicated in the prior notice. Dkt. 3. The letter [24] 1 notified petitioner if he failed to correct the listed deficiencies by February 7, 2025, it 2 “may affect the status of your case, including dismissal of the action by the Court.” Id. 3 The “amended notice of filing deficiency” was returned as undeliverable on 4 January 27, 2025. Dkt. 5. To date, petitioner has not notified the Court of any changes 5 to his mailing address, nor has he cured his IFP deficiency or filed any other documents 6 in this action. 7 Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, a party proceeding pro se shall keep the 8 Court and opposing parties advised as to his or her current mailing address. Local 9 Rules, W.D. Wash. (LCR) 41(b)(2). If mail directed to a pro se plaintiff by the Clerk is 10 returned by the Postal Service and if the plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing 11 parties within 60 days thereafter of his or her current mailing address, the Court may 12 dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Id. 13 More than 60 days have passed since the notice of initial filing deficiencies was 14 returned to the Court as undeliverable. As petitioner has not provided an updated 15 address, he has failed to properly prosecute in accordance with the Court’s Local Rules. 16 See LCR 41(b)(2). Accordingly, the action should be dismissed without prejudice for 17 failure to prosecute. 18 CONCLUSION 19 Based on the foregoing discussion, the undersigned recommends that this action 20 be dismissed without prejudice for failure to properly prosecute in accordance with Rule 21 41(b)(2) of this Court’s local rules. A proposed order and proposed judgment are 22 attached. 23 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the parties shall 24 have fourteen (14) days from service of this report to file written objections. See also 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for 2 purposes of de novo review by the district judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), and can 3 result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 4 U.S. 140, 142 (1985); Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations 5 omitted). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Clerk is 6 directed to set the matter for consideration on April 24, 2025, as noted in the caption. [8] Dated this 9th day of April, 2025. [11] A [12] Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge