Carroll v. Noem

Opinion

aa UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

EDDIE CARROLL #A220--486--058,, CIVIL DDOCKET NNO. 1:25--CV--00376 PPetitioner SSEC P

VERSUS JUDGE EDWARDS

KRISTI NOEM,, MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ--MONTES RRespondent

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by pro se Petitioner Eddie Carroll (“Carroll”). Carroll is an immigration detainee at the Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Jena, Louisiana. He challenges the legality of his continued detention. Because Carroll has failed to comply with the Court’s Order, the Petition should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. I. Background Carroll is a native and citizen of the Bahamas. ECF No. 1-2 at 2. He alleges that he was detained on August 22, 2024, after being released from criminal incarceration. . Carroll argues that he should be released under , 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Carroll was ordered to amend his Petition by May 23, 2025, to explain why his removal is unlikely to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future. ECF No. 4. To date, Carroll has not complied. III. Law and Analysis A district court may dismiss an action for a petitioner’s failure to prosecute or to comply with any order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The dismissal may occur upon

the motion of a defendant or the Court’s own motion. The authority to dismiss is provided to “achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases”; to “prevent undue delays”; and to “avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.” 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962); , 730 F.2d 248, 251 (5th Cir. 1984); 617 F.2d 1164, 1167 (5th Cir. 1980). Carroll has failed to comply with the Court’s Order to amend, and he has not

requested an extension of time within which to comply.1 Therefore, the Petition should be dismissed under Rule 41. III. Conclusion Because Carroll has failed to comply with the Court’s Order, 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

1 A search of ICE’s online detainee locator system reveals no matching records for Carroll. Therefore, he was likely released or deported. https://locator.ice.gov 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, July 2, 2025. xf ~ oe JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE