Josue Gabriel Ixtamer Cali v. Luis Rosa, Jr., et al.

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5

9 Josue Gabriel Ixtamer Cali, No. CV-26-01295-PHX-JCH

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Luis Rosa, Jr., et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 Before the Court is Magistrate Judge James E. Metcalf’s Report and 16 Recommendation (“R&R”), which recommends dismissing the above-captioned case 17 without prejudice for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 20). For the following reasons, the Court 18 will adopt the R&R in full. 19 I. Procedural History 20 Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on 21 February 24, 2026, challenging his continued detention pending completion of 22 administrative appeal on his removal to Guatemala. (Doc. 1.) The Petition asserts Petitioner 23 was “currently detained . . . at the Florence Processing Center.” (Doc. 1.) On March 10, 24 2026, the Court received notice that mail sent to Petitioner at the Florence Service 25 Processing Center was returned as undeliverable because Petitioner was not in custody. 26 (Doc. 8.) On March 11, 2026, Judge Metcalf issued an Order to Show Cause for failure to 27 prosecute, giving Petitioner 10 days to respond to the Order. (Doc. 9.) 28 On March 18, 2026, Respondents filed a Response to the Petition, stating Petitioner 1 “is currently at Florence Service Processing Center” and “has an ongoing appeal of this 2 removal order.” (Doc. 13 at 1.) The next day, Judge Metcalf ordered Respondents provide 3 a certificate of service of the Response on Petitioner as his current place of custody and the 4 address of service. (Doc. 14.) 5 On March 25, 2025, Respondents informed the Court: 6 Petitioner was removed to Guatemala on February 14, 2026. . . . [S]omeone at ICE failed to do the proper checks before removing Petitioner because his 7 appeal at the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) is still pending. As a 8 result, Petitioner is no longer in ICE custody and cannot receive mail. 9 (Doc. 15.) Respondents then stated that Petitioner’s removal from the United States made 10 his Petition moot and requested the Court deny the Petition accordingly. (Id. at 2–3.) 11 On April 4, 2026, Judge Metcalf issued an R&R which declined to resolve whether 12 the Petition was moot in favor of dismissing the Petition for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 20.) 13 Neither party objected to the R&R, and the Petitioner has not filed any documents or 14 otherwise interacted with this Court since his February 24, 2026 Petition. (See generally 15 docket.) 16 II. Analysis 17 Where, as here, no party objects to the R&R, the district judge is not required to 18 review the magistrate judge’s R&R under any specified standard of review. Thomas v. Arn, 19 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). However, the district judge may conduct further review, “sua 20 sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard.” Id. at 154. The 21 advisory committee’s notes to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, 22 “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear 23 error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate 24 judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson 25 v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). 26 The Court has reviewed and considered the Petition, Respondent’s Responses, and 27 the R&R. The Court finds the R&R is well-reasoned and adopts Judge Metcalf’s findings 28 and conclusions in full. Uf. Order 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS ORDERED adopting in full the R&R (Doc. 20.) 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Petition and dismissing without 5 || prejudice the above-captioned matter. The Clerk of the Court shall docket this matter 6 || accordingly and close this case. 7 Dated this 20th day of April, 2026. 8 9 f 4) 10 ae □□ □□ ll / / John C. Hinderaker _/United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_3-