Prins v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA THOMAS BERT PRINS, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05187-KKE-GJL Plaintiff, 11 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 12 IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS Noting Date: May 16, 2025 ENFORCEMENT FIELD OFFICE 13 DIRECTOR, et al., 14 Defendants.

15 This case is before the Court on referral from the District Court. Plaintiff, Thomas Bert Prins, proceeding pro se, has filed a Proposed Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. 1, 1-1. At the time Plaintiff signed the Proposed Complaint on February 25, 2025, he was detained at the Northwest ICE Processing Center (“NWIPC”). Dkt. 1-1. The United States has advised the Court that Plaintiff was removed to Canada, his home country, on February 28, 2025. See Prins v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Officer, et al., No. 2:25-cv-00410-BHS-BAT (W.D. Wash. filed Mar. 5, 2025), Dkt. 4.

23 After the Court became aware that Plaintiff is no longer located at NWIPC, on March 12, 2025, the Court directed Plaintiff to update his address on or before April 11, 2025, or face dismissal of this action. Dkt. 4. This Order was returned as undeliverable.1 Dkt. 6. The returned envelope indicates the mail was not deliverable as addressed and unable to forward. Id. at 1.

3 Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s March 12, 2025, Order and Local Civil Rule 41(b)(2). He has not provided the Court with his current address. As Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s Order and prosecute this case, the Court recommends this case be DISMISSED without prejudice and the pending IFP Motion (Dkt. 1) be DENIED as moot.

7 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this report to file written objections. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985); Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the Clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on May 16, 2025, as noted in the caption.

13 Dated this 1st day of May, 2025.

A 16 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge On March 19, 2025, the Clerk of Court’s letter to Plaintiff indicating the filing date of his action, the case number, and judge assignment also was returned as undeliverable. Dkts. 3, 5.