Nguyen- Huu v. LaRose
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 3.) See Ferdi
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by a petitioner who was subsequently released from ICE custody and failed to respond to an Order to Show Cause regarding mootness. The court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute under its inherent authority and Local Rule 83.11(b).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the action without prejudice“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the petitioner failed to comply with the Order to Show Cause and failed to update his address as required by Local Rule 83.11(b). The application of the Ferdik factors to support dismissal for failure to prosecute is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent, particularly given the petitioner's release from custody which likely rendered the habeas petition moot, and his subsequent failure to engage with the court. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the inherent authority doctrine and the specific local rule regarding address changes. It cites the appropriate Ninth Circuit precedent (Ferdik) and Supreme Court precedent (Link) to support the dismissal. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural dismissal based on non-compliance with a court order and local rules.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THANH NGUYEN-HUU, Case No. 24-cv-01649-BAS-SBC 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Petitioner Thanh Nguyen-Huu filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 19 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking release from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. 20 (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner was subsequently released under an order of supervision on 21 October 1, 2024. (ECF No. 6 at 1.) On December 12, 2024, the Court issued an Order to 22 Show Cause (“OSC”), directing Petitioner to explain why the case should not be dismissed 23 as moot. (ECF No. 7.) The deadline to respond was December 30, 2024. Id. On December 24 23, 2024, the OSC mailed to Petitioner was returned as undeliverable. (ECF No. 8.) 25 Petitioner has not responded or otherwise communicated with the Court since noticing the 26 Court of a change of address on September 23, 2024. (ECF No. 3.) 27 District courts have inherent authority to manage their dockets, including dismissing 28 cases for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1 || 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). This inherent power exists independently of a district court’s 2 || authority to dismiss an action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Link v. Wabash 3 ||R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630-32 (1962). “Despite this authority, dismissal is a harsh penalty 4 therefore, it should only be imposed in extreme circumstances.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 5 |} 1260. 6 The circumstances in which a court may exercise its inherent power to dismiss an 7 ||action include where a plaintiff has failed to prosecute the case, failed to comply with a 8 || court order, or engaged in judge shopping. Link, 370 U.S. at 630. In determining whether 9 || to exercise this power, the district court must weigh five factors: (1) the public’s interest in 10 || expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the court’s docket management needs, (3) the risk 11 || of prejudice to defendants, (4) public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, 12 (5) availability of less drastic alternatives. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61. Although it 13 preferred, the district court is not required to “make explicit findings in order to show 14 || that it has considered these factors.” /d. at 1261. 15 Here, Petitioner has failed to notify the Court as to his current address within 60 days 16 |/of the return of mail directed to him by the Clerk. (ECF No. 8.) As a result, under Civ. 17 83.11(b), the Court has the discretion to dismiss this action without prejudice for 18 || failure to prosecute. Having weighed the appropriate factors, the Court concludes that 19 || dismissing this case is warranted. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61. 20 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The 21 || Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 || DATED: March 4, 2025 (yatta Bahar □□ 5 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 26 27 28 ~_9.