Opinion
Case No. 4:20cv571-TKW-MAF
01-28-2021
JUAN RAMON JIMENEZ-PABON, A# 024-456-131, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM BARR, et al., Respondents.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This case was initiated on December 11, 2020, by a pro se Petitioner who filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF No. 1. This was not the first petition he filed. An earlier petition (4:20cv272-MW-MAF) was denied on October 27, 2020, as it appeared that Petitioner's removal was significantly likely to occur in the near future. ECF Nos. 12-14 of the prior case.
In this case, Petitioner submitted a nearly identical petition, ECF No. 1, and demonstrated that he had not yet been removed and was still in custody. Finding it sufficient, an Order was entered on December 21, 2020, directing service of the petition and requiring a response be filed to the petition. ECF No. 3. In early January 2021, Petitioner's copy of that Order was returned to the Court as undeliverable. ECF No. 4. The postal stamp on the returned envelope states only: "Return to Sender" and "No Longer at" the Wakulla County Jail. Id. Sufficient time has passed for Petitioner to notify this Court of his address upon release if he intended to pursue his claims against the Respondents. Nothing has been received.
It appears that Petitioner has either been released from custody or removed from the United States. In either case, this petition would be moot. Yet it also appears that Petitioner has abandoned this litigation by not keeping the Court informed as to his whereabouts. In light thereof, and because Court Orders cannot reach Petitioner, this case should be dismissed.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the § 2241 petition, ECF No. 1, be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and because it appears to be moot as Petitioner is no longer detained at the Wakulla County Jail.
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on January 28, 2021.
S/ Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific written objections to these proposed findings and recommendations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A copy of the objections shall be served upon all other parties. A party may respond to another party's objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the Court's internal use only and does not control. If a party fails to object to the Magistrate Judge's findings or recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court's order based on the unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.