Iusupov Iusufzhan v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: November 7, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00838
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IUSUPOV IUSUFZHAN, No. 1:25-cv-00838-CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE FOR PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO OBEY LOCAL RULES AND 14 WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE FAILURE TO PROSECUTE ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 15 14-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE Respondents. 16 Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge 17 18 Petitioner Iusupov Iusufzhan (“Petitioner”), a federal detainee, proceeds pro se and in forma 19 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). On July 20 10, 2025, Petitioner filed the instant petition while in custody of the Immigration and Customs 21 Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Golden State Annex, located in McFarland, California. Id. 22 Relevant Background 23 Petitioner alleges that his detention for more than 12 months without being afforded a bond 24 hearing violates Petitioner’s constitutional and statutory rights. The Court preliminarily concluded 25 that Petitioner’s petition may be cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and that this Court possesses 26 jurisdiction over the action because Petitioner was incarcerated at Golden State Annex (a facility 27 within the Eastern District of California) at the time of filing. (Doc. 7) (citing Doe v. Garland, 109 28 F.4th 1188, 1197-99 (9th Cir. 2024)). Accordingly, on July 14, 2025, the Court ordered Respondent 1 to file a response to the petition. Id. 2 On September 3, 2025, the Court entered an order granting Respondent’s motion for an 3 extension of time to file a response to the petition. (Docs. 11, 12). The order was served upon 4 Petitioner that same date. (Dkt. entry 9/03/2025). On September 15, 2025, the Court’s order served 5 upon Petitioner was returned by the United States Postal Service (USPS) marked “Undeliverable, 6 Return to Sender, not Deliverable as Addressed.” (Dkt. entry 9/15/2025). Accordingly, on October 7 8, 2025, the Court issued an order to show cause directing Petitioner to state in writing why the 8 action should not be dismissed in light of his failure to keep the Court updated regarding his current 9 address. (Doc. 14). Petitioner failed to respond to the show cause order and the deadline to do so 10 has passed. 11 On September 10, 2025, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds 12 that Petitioner was removed from the United States on September 5, 2025, and, hence, the action is 13 moot. (Doc. 13) (citing inter alia Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 1991)); (Doc. 14 13-1, Declaration of Deportation Officer Lorenzo Perez, ¶ 5). 15 Discussion 16 Plaintiff has failed to keep the Court apprised of his current address in violation of this 17 Court’s Local Rules. Therefore, the undersigned will recommend this action be dismissed without 18 prejudice. 19 Governing Legal Standard 20 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, “[f]ailure 21 of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds 22 for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the 23 inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their 24 dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. 25 Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may 26 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply 27 with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal 28 for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 1 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. 2 Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with 3 local rules). 4 Local Rule 182(f) provides that a “pro se party is under a continuing duty to notify the Clerk 5 and all other parties of any change of address …. Absent such notice, service of documents at the 6 prior address of the … pro se party shall be fully effective.” Further, Local Rule 183(b) states that 7 a “party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and opposing parties advised as to his or 8 her current address. If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the 9 U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within thirty 10 (30) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for 11 failure to prosecute.” (Emphasis omitted.) 12 “In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is 13 required to weigh several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) 14 the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 15 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 16 sanctions.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks & citation 17 omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do and are not conditions that must be 18 met in order for a court to take action. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability 19 Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 20 Analysis 21 Here, Petitioner has failed to file a notice of change of address or to otherwise advise the 22 Court of his current address. As noted above, a recent order of the Court was returned undeliverable 23 and Respondent has attested that Petitioner was removed from the United States. Given the Court’s 24 inability to communicate with Petitioner, there are no other reasonable alternatives available to 25 address Petitioner’s failure to obey the Local Rules and failure to prosecute. Thus, the first and 26 second factors — the expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its 27 docket — weigh in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 28 The third factor, risk of prejudice to Respondent, also weighs fairly in favor of dismissal 1 since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an 2 action. See Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Here, Respondent has complied 3 with the Court’s order to respond to the petition by filing a motion to dismiss. However, these 4 proceedings are essentially at a standstill because of Petitioner’s failure to respond to the motion 5 and to keep the Court and the parties apprised of his current address. Thus, the third factor also 6 weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440-41. 7 The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors disposition 8 on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor 9 lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the 10 merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction.” In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228. 11 Petitioner has not moved this case forward toward disposition on the merits. Instead, Plaintiff has 12 stopped communicating with the Court and has failed to comply with this Court’s Local Rules. 13 More than 30 days have passed since the USPS returned the Court’s order marked undeliverable, 14 yet Petitioner has failed to file a notice of change of address in compliance with Local Rule 183(b). 15 Therefore, the fourth factor — the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits — 16 also weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 17 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s orders will result in 18 dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. 19 Here, in the Court’s informational letter issued July 10, 2025, Petitioner was advised of the 20 requirement under Rule 182 to notify the Court and all other parties of any change of address. (Doc. 21 4). Thereafter, in the Court’s order directing Respondent to respond to the petition, the Court 22 admonished that all provisions of Local Rule 110 – titled “Sanctions for Noncompliance with 23 Rules” and providing that all sanctions available under statute and rule may be imposed for 24 violation of the Local Rules – were applicable. Finally, on October 8, 2025, the Court issued an 25 order to show cause directing Petitioner to state in writing why the action should not be dismissed 26 in light of his apparent failure to keep the Court updated regarding his current address. (Doc. 14). 27 In that order, the Court admonished that “[a]ny failure by Petitioner to timely respond to this order 28 will result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.” (Doc. 14). Accordingly, the 1 | undersigned finds Petitioner had adequate warning that dismissal could result from his 2 | noncompliance with this Court’s Local Rules or failure to update his address. Thus, the fifth 3 | factor — the availability of less drastic sanctions —weighs in favor of dismissal. Ferdik, 963 F.2d 4 | at 1262; Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 5 In sum, Petitioner has failed to comply with this Court’s Local Rules, and in doing so, has 6 | failed to prosecute this action. Having weighed the equities and considered the relevant factors 7 | noted above, the undersigned concludes that dismissal of this action is warranted. 8 Conclusion and Order 9 The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a U.S. district judge to this 10 | action. 11 For the reasons stated above, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be 12 | dismissed, without prejudice, based on Petitioner’s failure to obey the Local Rules and to prosecute 13 | this action. 14 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 15 || assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days after 16 | being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 17 || objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to 18 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed 15 pages without leave 19 | of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the Objections. 20 | To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit in the 21 | record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise reference the 22 | exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limitation may be disregarded by 23 | the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 24 | 636(b)(1)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time may result in the 25 | waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). 26 | IT IS SOORDERED. 27 Dated: _ November 7, 2025 | Ww VV KD 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE