Tran v. Figueroa

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
TUAN TRAN,
Petitioner,
v.
F. FIGUEROA,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
) 	Case No. CIV-26-390-J
)
)
)
)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Tuan Tran, a non-citizen proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”) challenging his detention by the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”).1 (Doc. 1). United States District Judge
Bernard M. Jones, II referred the matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for initial
proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). (Doc. 3). Based on Petitioner’s
failure to either pay the filing fee or file a proper application to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP,” without prepayment of fees or costs), the undersigned recommends that the court
DISMISS the action without prejudice to the re-filing.
Petitioner filed the instant Petition on March 2, 2026. (Doc. 1). On March 4, 2026,
the undersigned ordered that Petitioner either pay the $5.00 filing fee or file an IFP
1 Petitioner represented that he was housed at Diamondback Correctional Facility in
Watonga, Oklahoma. (Doc. 1, at 1).
Case 5:26-cv-00390-J Document 7 Filed 03/31/26 Page 1 of 3

2
application by March 25, 2026. (Doc. 4, at 1-2). Petitioner was warned that “[f]ailure to
comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of this action.” (Id. at 2).
To date, Petitioner has neither paid the $5.00 filing fee nor filed an IFP application.
The court’s records reflect that mail addressed to Petitioner was returned as undeliverable
on 	March 	27, 	2026, 	marked 	“RETURN 	TO 	SENDER 	NO 	LONGER 	AT 	THIS
ADDRESS” and “Not here.” (Docs. 5, 6). Petitioner is responsible for notifying the court
of any change of address, see LCvR 5.4(a), and “[p]apers sent by the court will be deemed
delivered if sent to the last known address given to the court.” Id.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), if a petitioner “fails to prosecute
or to comply with these rules or a court order,” the court may dismiss the action. The Tenth
Circuit interprets Rule 41(b) to permit courts to dismiss habeas actions sua sponte when a
petitioner fails to prosecute his claim. 	See, e.g., DeAtley v. Williams, 782 F. App’x 736,
737 (10th Cir. 2019) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition under Rule 41(b)). 	If the
dismissal is without prejudice, the court generally need not follow any “particular
procedures” in entering the dismissal order. 	AdvantEdge Bus. Grp. v. Thomas E.
Mestmaker & Assocs., Inc., 552 F.3d 1233, 1236 (10th Cir. 2009); see also Robledo-Valdez
v. Smelser, 593 F. App’x 771, 775 (10th Cir. 2014) (explaining that a district court may,
without abusing its powers, dismiss a case without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) without
attention to any particular procedures).
Petitioner’s failure to comply with the court’s Order leaves the court unable “to
achieve [an] orderly and expeditious” resolution of this action. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370
U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962) (discussing the inherent power of a court to dismiss suits for lack
Case 5:26-cv-00390-J Document 7 Filed 03/31/26 Page 2 of 3

3
of prosecution on its own initiative). As outlined above, the court has provided Petitioner
sufficient notice of the possibility of dismissal, as well as an additional response
opportunity through objection to this Report and Recommendation. Thus, considering the
court’s right and responsibility to manage its cases, the undersigned finds that Petitioner’s
failure to comply with the court’s Order, (Doc. 4), warrants a recommendation that the
court DISMISS this action without prejudice to the re-filing.
The undersigned advises Petitioner of his right to file an objection to this
Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of Court on or before April 21, 2026,
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The undersigned also advises
Petitioner that failure to make a timely objection to this Report and Recommendation
waives the right to appellate review of both factual and legal questions contained herein.
Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues and terminates the referral
to the undersigned Magistrate Judge unless and until the matter is re-referred.
ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00390-J Document 7 Filed 03/31/26 Page 3 of 3