Reported / Citable
Background
Mario Alfonso Hernandez Sanchez filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging his immigration detention while in ICE custody at the Joe Corley Processing Center in Conroe, Texas.
The court’s case-opening notice was returned with a notation that Hernandez Sanchez had left the facility on September 15, 2026. He did not provide a current address, pay the $5 habeas filing fee, or seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Andrew S. Hanen dismissed the action without prejudice for want of prosecution. The court relied on its authority to manage its docket and on Rule 41(b), concluding that dismissal was appropriate because the pro se petitioner failed to keep the clerk informed of a current address as required by Southern District of Texas Local Rule 83.4.
The court did not decide the merits of the detention challenge. It denied all pending motions as moot and advised that Hernandez Sanchez could seek Rule 60(b) relief within 30 days by making a proper showing, including providing a valid address and either paying the filing fee or submitting a properly supported in forma pauperis motion.
Key Takeaways
- A pro se litigant must keep the court informed in writing of a current address.
- A returned court notice and failure to update contact information can support dismissal for want of prosecution.
- The dismissal was without prejudice and left open the possibility of Rule 60(b) relief upon compliance with the court’s requirements.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the procedural obligations facing immigration detainees pursuing § 2241 relief, particularly when they are transferred or leave a detention facility. A habeas case may be dismissed without reaching the legality of detention if the petitioner cannot be contacted and does not comply with filing requirements.