Winders v. Gunther

D. Arizona

Winders v. Gunther

DecidedDecember 17, 2024

Docket2:24-cv-02330

StatusUnknown

This text of Winders v. Gunther (Winders v. Gunther) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Winders v. Gunther, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Michael Justin Winders, No. CV-24-02330-PHX-JAT (ESW) 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER 12 Jason Gunther, 13 Respondent.

14 15 On September 5, 2024, Petitioner Michael Justin Winders, who was then confined 16 in the Federal Correctional Institution-Phoenix, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas 17 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). Petitioner did not pay the $5.00 filing fee 18 or file an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In an October 31, 2024 Order, the 19 Court gave Petitioner 30 days to pay the filing fee or file an Application to Proceed In 20 Forma Pauperis. That same day, the Clerk of Court mailed the Order to Petitioner at his 21 address of record. On November 14, 2024, the mail sent to Petitioner was returned as 22 undeliverable. Petitioner has not filed a Notice of Change of Address or otherwise 23 informed the Court of his whereabouts, and he has not complied with the October 31, 2024 24 Order. 25 Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the Court to dismiss an 26 action for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 27 failure to comply with the Court’s local rules, or failure to comply with the Court’s orders. 28 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (a court’s authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution is necessary to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the district courts); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. United States Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 4 2005) (court may dismiss under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or comply with rules of 5 | civil procedure or the court’s orders); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court). 8 Here, Petitioner’s failure to inform the Court of his whereabouts constitutes a failure 9| to prosecute, see Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988), and he has failed to 10 | comply with the Court’s Orders. The Court will therefore dismiss the Petition and this 11 | action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). 12 IT IS ORDERED that the Petition (Doc. 1) and this action are dismissed without 13 | prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk of 14 Court must enter Judgment accordingly and close this case. 15 Dated this 17th day of December, 2024. 16 17 a 18 19 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Michael Justin Winders, No. CV-24-02330-PHX-JAT (ESW) 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER 12 Jason Gunther, 13 Respondent.

14 15 On September 5, 2024, Petitioner Michael Justin Winders, who was then confined 16 in the Federal Correctional Institution-Phoenix, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas 17 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). Petitioner did not pay the $5.00 filing fee 18 or file an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In an October 31, 2024 Order, the 19 Court gave Petitioner 30 days to pay the filing fee or file an Application to Proceed In 20 Forma Pauperis. That same day, the Clerk of Court mailed the Order to Petitioner at his 21 address of record. On November 14, 2024, the mail sent to Petitioner was returned as 22 undeliverable. Petitioner has not filed a Notice of Change of Address or otherwise 23 informed the Court of his whereabouts, and he has not complied with the October 31, 2024 24 Order. 25 Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the Court to dismiss an 26 action for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 27 failure to comply with the Court’s local rules, or failure to comply with the Court’s orders. 28 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (a court’s authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution is necessary to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the district courts); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. United States Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 4 2005) (court may dismiss under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or comply with rules of 5 | civil procedure or the court’s orders); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court). 8 Here, Petitioner’s failure to inform the Court of his whereabouts constitutes a failure 9| to prosecute, see Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988), and he has failed to 10 | comply with the Court’s Orders. The Court will therefore dismiss the Petition and this 11 | action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). 12 IT IS ORDERED that the Petition (Doc. 1) and this action are dismissed without 13 | prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk of 14 Court must enter Judgment accordingly and close this case. 15 Dated this 17th day of December, 2024. 16 17 a 18 19 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Winders v. Gunther, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winders-v-gunther-azd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack