(HC) Colley v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — 11 JOVON WINSTON COLLEY, No. 1:25-cv-00082-CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 13 v. HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUIDCE (1) FOR PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO 14 WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE PROSECUTE AND TO OBEY COURT ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, et al., ORDERS AND LOCAL RULES, AND (2) AS 15 MOOT FOLLOWING PETITIONER’S Respondents. RELEASE FROM CUSTODY — 16 — (Doc. 19) — 17 — 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD — 18 — Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge — 19 — 20 Petitioner Jovon Winston Colley (“Petitioner”), a federal detainee, proceeds pro se and in 21 forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on January 22 17, 2025. (Doc. 1). According to his pleadings, Petitioner was in custody of the Immigration and 23 Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Golden State Annex, located in McFarland, California. Id. 24 Background 25 Following a preliminary review of the petition and finding that it is not clear from the face 26 of the petition whether Petitioner is entitled to relief, on January 24, 2025, the Court ordered 27 Respondents to file a response to Petitioner’s petition within 60 days of the date of service of the 28 order. (Doc. 7). Respondents timely filed a motion to dismiss the petition on March 25, 2025. 1 (Doc. 9). 2 In a filing dated April 2, 2025, and docketed by the Clerk of the Court on April 7, 2025, 3 Petitioner complained that he had not received a response from Respondents nor this Court 4 regarding his pending habeas petition. (Doc. 10). The Court responded with an order 5 summarizing the procedural posture noted above and provided that “[g]iven the procedural 6 chronology of the relevant filings, the Court expects Petitioner in all likelihood has received 7 service of Respondents’ motion to dismiss by the time he receives service of this order.” (Doc. 8 11, the “April 10 Order”). 9 Thereafter, Petitioner filed a status report representing that he received the Court’s April 10 10 Order but that he has “still not received a response from the Respondents.” (Doc. 12 at 1). 11 Accordingly, on April 23, 2025, the Court ordered Respondents to serve a copy of their motion to 12 dismiss on Petitioner and promptly file proof of service thereof. (Doc. 13 at 3). The Court 13 further ordered Respondents to undertake reasonable and good faith efforts to investigate 14 whether, prior to the date of the order, Respondents’ motion to dismiss was received by the 15 facility housing Petitioner, and to file a status report attesting to the efforts they undertook to 16 discover the location of the service copy of Respondents’ motion to dismiss and the results of 17 their investigation. Id. Petitioner was ordered to file his opposition within 30 days from the date 18 of Respondents’ service of the motion to dismiss. Id. 19 On May 5, 2025, Respondents filed the investigative status report in response to the 20 Court’s order. (Doc. 16). Respondents represent that “personnel from the Golden State Annex 21 reported that the motion to dismiss and response had not been received” and that “there is no clear 22 answer” why the motion to dismiss and response were not received at Golden State Annex as 23 addressed to Petitioner. Id. at 1, 2 . That same day, Respondents filed a certificate of re-service by 24 certified mail, representing therein that its motion to dismiss and response was served on 25 Petitioner at his current address on May 2, 2025, making Petitioner’s opposition/traverse to the 26 pending motion due on June 4, 2025. (Doc. 15); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (additional three days 27 following service). 28 Following Petitioner’s failure to timely file an opposition/traverse or statement of non1 opposition to Respondents’ pending motion to dismiss, on June 20, 2025, the Court denied 2 Petitioner’s motions for immediate release (Docs. 14, 17, 18) and ordered Petitioner to show 3 cause in writing within 14 days of the date of service of the order why this action should not be 4 dismissed for his failure to comply with Local Rules and to obey a court order (i.e., to timely file 5 an opposition to Respondents’ motion). (Doc. 19). Petitioner was provided the opportunity to 6 comply with the order to show cause in the alternative by filing by that same deadline either an 7 opposition/traverse or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion to dismiss. Id. at 4 . 8 Petitioner was forewarned that “[a]ny failure by Petitioner to timely respond to this Order 9 may result in the recommendation that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for 10 Petitioner’s failure to comply with the Local Rules and to obey a court order.” Id. 11 On July 7, 2025, the mailing of the order to show cause (Doc. 19) was returned as 12 undeliverable with the docket noting Petitioner has been released and is no longer in custody. See 13 Dkt. 7/07/2025. As more than 14 days have elapsed following the entry of the order to show 14 cause, and given Petitioner’s release from custody, the undersigned issues the following findings 15 and recommendations to dismiss Petitioner’s petition for failure to prosecute and to obey court 16 orders and, separately, on the grounds of mootness. 17 Governing Legal Standards 18 Local Rule 110, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provides that 19 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may 20 be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of 21 the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and 22 may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the 23 action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837 , 841 (9th Cir. 2000). A court may dismiss 24 an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with 25 local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 26 failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 27 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson 28 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 , 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply 1 with local rules). 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows the Court to dismiss an action if the 3 petitioner fails to comply with a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). “By its plain text, a Rule 4 41(b) dismissal . . . requires a court order with which an offending [petitioner] failed to comply.” 5 Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 891 (9th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation 6 marks, citation, and footnote omitted). The Court must analyze five factors before dismissing a 7 case pursuant to Rule 41(b): “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) 8 the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the [respondents]; (4) the public 9 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 10 alternatives.” Id. (quoting Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 , 990 (9th Cir. 1999)); 11 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). These factors guide a court in deciding 12 what to do and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re 13 Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) 14 (citation omitted). 15 Discussion 16 Here, Petitioner has failed to comply with the Court’s orders and Local Rules. Petitioner 17 has filed no response to the Court’s order to show cause nor has he either filed an 18 opposition/traverse or statement of non-opposition to Respondents’ pending motion to dismiss, 19 and the time to do so has passed. There are no other reasonable alternatives available to address 20 Petitioner’s failure to respond and otherwise obey this Court’s numerous orders to file a response 21 to Respondents’ pending motion to dismiss. Thus, the first and second factors—the expeditious 22 resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket—weigh in favor of dismissal. 23 Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 24 The third factor, risk of prejudice to Respondents, also weighs fairly in favor of dismissal 25 since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an 26 action. See Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). This matter cannot proceed 27 further without Petitioner’s participation to prosecute the case by filing his opposition/traverse or 28 statement of non-opposition to Respondents’ motion to dismiss his habeas petition. The 1 presumption of injury holds given Petitioner’s unreasonable delay in prosecuting this action. 2 Thus, the third factor—a risk of prejudice to the Respondents—also weighs in favor of dismissal. 3 Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 4 The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors 5 disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, 6 “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward 7 disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction.” In re PPA, 460 8 F.3d at 1228. Petitioner has not moved this case forward toward disposition on the merits. He 9 has instead failed to comply with this Court’s orders and the Local Rules and is thus impeding the 10 progress of this action. Therefore, the fourth factor — the public policy favoring disposition of 11 cases on their merits — also weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 12 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in 13 dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262 . 14 Here, the Court’s order to show cause, requiring a response from Petitioner, cautioned: “Any 15 failure by Petitioner to timely respond to this Order may result in the recommendation that 16 this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for Petitioner’s failure to comply with the Local 17 Rules and to obey a court order.” (Doc. 19 at 4) (emphasis in original). Petitioner was 18 adequately forewarned that the failure to timely respond to the show cause order either directly or 19 in the alternative with the timely filing of a response to the pending motion to dismiss could result 20 in terminating sanctions. 21 Because Petitioner has failed to comply with this Court’s orders and Local Rules, and in 22 so doing is failing to prosecute his case, the undersigned will recommend dismissal of this action 23 without prejudice. 24 In addition, the undersigned finds that given Petitioner’s release from custody at the 25 Golden State Annex, the Court is unable to grant him the relief he seeks, i.e., for an order of 26 immediate release from custody, and his petition is moot. (Doc. 1 at 2 ¶¶ 4, 5); see Munoz v. 27 Rowland, 104 F.3d 1096, 1098 (9th Cir. 1997) (release of a prisoner moots a habeas corpus case); 28 Johnson v. Matevousian, 745 Fed. Appx. 780 , 781 (9th Cir. 2018) (same). Accordingly, the 1 | undersigned recommends the petition must be dismissed on mootness grounds. 2 Conclusion, Order, and Recommendation 3 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign a district 4 | judge to this action and RECOMMENDS that: 5 1. This action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE (1) for Petitioner’s failure to 6 prosecute this case and to comply with a court order and the Local Rules, and (2) 7 because Petitioner’s petition is moot following his release from custody; and 8 2. The Clerk of the Court be DIRECTED to close this case. 9 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 10 || Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(). Within 14 days 11 | after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 12 | objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to 13 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed 15 pages without 14 || leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the 15 | Objections, but a party may refer to exhibits in the record by CM/ECF document and page 16 | number. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limitation may be disregarded by the District 17 | Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(U)(C). A 18 | party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain 19 | rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). 20 | IT Is SO ORDERED. 21 | } ) Bo Dated: _ July 9, 2025 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —