United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Matthew W. Brann United States District Judge.
Cayetano-Hernandez filed this petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while confined at
the Pike County Correctional Facility, Lords Valley,
Pennsylvania. Named as Respondents are various federal
officials and Warden Craig Lowe of the Pike County
Correctional Facility.Petitioner's accompanying request for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted
for the sole purpose of the filing of this action with this
states that he is a native and citizen of Mexico who first
entered the United States in 2004 and was thereafter granted
voluntary departure. According to the Petitioner, he
reentered the United States in 2008 without inspection.
Following a Pennsylvania state criminal conviction for
insurance fraud, forgery (12 counts), and criminal
attempt/theft by deception, removal proceedings were
initiated against Cayetano-Hernandez. An Immigration Judge
ordered Petitioner's removal on October 25, 2016. An
appeal of that determination was pending before the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) when this matter was initiated.
claims that he has been detained by ICE for over seventeen
(17) months. The pending § 2241 petition challenges
Cayetano-Hernandez's indefinite detention pending
removal. The Petitioner contends that he has been detained
for an unreasonable amount of time while his removal
proceedings are ongoing in violation of the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Diop v. ICE/Homeland
Sec., 656 F.3d 221, 231-35 (3d Cir. 2011), and
Leslie v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 678 F.3d 265, 269
(3d Cir. 2012). As relief, Petitioner seeks his immediate
release or a bond hearing as contemplated in
Chavez-Alvarez v. Warden York Cty. Prison, 783 F.3d
469, 477 (3d Cir. 2015) .
the filing of this action correspondence sent to the
Petitioner by the Clerk of Court's office was returned as
undeliverable with a notation that the letter could not be
forwarded. See Doc. 4. The Clerk of Court's
office attempted to verify the Petitioner's whereabouts
by telephoning the Pike County Prison and was informed only
that he had been released from that facility on or about
March 10, 2017.
Pa. Local Rule 83.18 provides that a pro se litigant
such as Cayetano-Hernandez has an affirmative obligation to
keep the Court informed of his address and must immediately
inform the Court if his address changes in the course of the
litigation. Failure to satisfy that obligation may be
construed as a failure to prosecute and result in an entry of
dismissal. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
Petitioner has apparently left the Pike County Prison, he has
not advised this Court of either his release from that
facility nor provided it with his current address.
Consequently, he has failed to comply with the requirements
of Local Rule 83.18.
failure has prevented this matter from proceeding. The
inability of this Court to communicate with
Cayetano-Hernandez is solely the result for his own inaction
and renders ineffective any sanction short of dismissal of
the action. See Poulis v. State Farm, 747 F.2d 863
(3d Cir. 1984). Since Petitioner's present whereabouts
are unknown, it would be a waste of judicial resources to
allow this action to continue. Based on the present
circumstances, dismissal of this action without prejudice for
failure to prosecute is warranted. However, in the event that
Petitioner provides this Court with his current address
within a reasonable time period, this determination will be
the case or controversy requirement of Article III, § 2
of the United States Constitution subsists through all stages
of federal judicial proceedings. Parties must continue to
have a “‘personal stake in the outcome' of
the lawsuit." Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp.,
494 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990); Preiser v. Newkirk, 422
U.S. 395, 401 (1975). In other words, throughout the course
of the action, the aggrieved party must suffer or be
threatened with actual injury caused by the defendant.
Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477.
adjudicatory power of a federal court depends upon "the
continuing existence of a live and acute
controversy." Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S.
452, 459 (1974) (emphasis in original). "The rule in
federal cases is that an actual controversy must be extant at
all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is
filed." Id. at n.10 (citations omitted).
"Past exposure to illegal conduct is insufficient to
sustain a present case or controversy ... if unaccompanied by
continuing, present adverse effects." Rosenberg v.
Meese, 622 F.Supp. 1451, 1462 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (citing
O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495-96
(1974)); see also Gaeta v. Gerlinski, Civil No.
3:CV-02-465, slip op. at p. 2 (M.D. Pa. May 17, 2002)
relief, Petitioner sought his immediate release from ICE
detention or a bond hearing. Since Petitioner is no longer
being detained at the Pike County Prison, it appears that the
instant petition may be subject to dismissal as moot under
the principles set forth in Steffel because it no