Jose Sierra Hernandez v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Barry T. Moskowitz (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas corpus petition that had previously been dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend, and found that the petitioner failed to respond to the court's order to amend within the allotted time. The court ordered the dismissal of the civil action in its entirety without prejudice and directed the entry of final judgment.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the civil action in its entirety without prejudice“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES without prejudice this civil action in its entirety.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the precedent set in Edwards v. Marin Park to sanction the petitioner's failure to prosecute the case by not amending the petition as ordered. The dismissal without prejudice is consistent with the prior order and the procedural history. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the prior order granting leave to amend, notes the expiration of the time to respond, and applies the appropriate rule and circuit precedent to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE SIERRA HERNANDEZ, Case No.: 3:26-cv-00831-BTM-VET 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 13 v. ACTION AND DIRECTING FINAL JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL 14 15 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 16 Respondent. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Jose Sierra Hernandez petitioned the Court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 2 ||28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court found that the petition did not meet the screening 3 ||requirements for a habeas petition and dismissed the case without prejudice on February 4 2026. (ECF No. 3, at 3.) The Court also granted the Petitioner forty-five (45) days to 5 |}amend his petition. (/d.) The Court stated that the failure to amend the petition would 6 ||result in a final judgment of dismissal. (/d.) 7 The time for the Petitioner to respond to the Order has passed and the Court has 8 ||received no communication from the Petitioner. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to 9 ||respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to 10 court that [he] will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) 11 || dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Fed. R. 12 || Civ. P. 41(b) (providing for involuntary dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with 13 || the federal rules or court order). 14 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES without prejudice this civil action in its 15 || entirety. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter a final judgment of dismissal and 16 || close the file. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 22, 2026 ny. Fit sence Honorable Barry Ted Mosko 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 □ □□