Carlos Chacon-Arvizo v. Steve Langfort

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION by Judge Manuel L. Real. Petitioners case is moot, and he appears to have abandoned the action. Accordingly, for the above reasons, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (See Order for further details) (vm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

CARLOS CHACON-ARVIZO,
Petitioner,

14
15
16
17

Case No. CV 16-1338 R (MRW)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

v.
STEVE LANGFORD, Warden,
Defendants.

18
19
20

The Court grants the government’s unopposed motion to dismiss this federal
habeas action as moot and for failure to prosecute.

21

***

22

Petitioner is a federal prisoner at FCI Lompoc. He filed a habeas action

23

(28 U.S.C. § 2241) challenging the calculation of the federal Bureau of Prisons

24

(BOP) regarding his credits for time spent in custody. (Docket # 1.) After

25

screening the petition, the Court (Magistrate Judge Wilner) directed the

26

government to respond to the petition. (Docket # 3.)

27
28

The government moved to dismiss the action as moot. (Docket # 5.) The
government explained that, after Petitioner filed this action, “the BOP re-examined

1

its determination regarding the award of pre-sentence custody credit to Petitioner.”

2

(Id. at 3.) The BOP determined that Petitioner was now entitled to a considerable

3

amount of credit (from mid-2012 through early 2014, and modified the start date of

4

additional federal time in custody) that advanced his release date to October 2016.

5

The government argued that Petitioner received the relief (that is, the custody

6

credits) that he requested in the petition. On that basis, the government contended

7

that Petitioner’s action was moot and should be dismissed. (Id. at 5-6.)

8
9

The Court issued an order summarizing the government’s motion for
Petitioner’s benefit. (Docket # 6.) The Court further required Petitioner to respond

10

to the government’s motion or voluntarily request the dismissal of the action by

11

April 22. Judge Wilner specifically informed Petitioner that the action could be

12

dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute the

13

case. (Id.) However, Petitioner failed to file a timely response.

14
15

***
1.

Local Rule of Court 7-12 states that, after a party files a motion with

16

the Court, the failure to file a required response “may be deemed consent to the

17

granting [ ] of the motion.” That rule applies to the present dismissal motion. The

18

government plausibly established that Petitioner received the relief that he

19

requested in the habeas action when the BOP revisited its calculation of

20

Petitioner’s pre-sentence credits. He received what he asked for in the habeas

21

action, rendering the case moot. Petitioner’s failure to respond to the dismissal

22

motion signifies his consent to the dismissal of the action.

23

2.

Dismissal is also proper under Rule 41(b). Rule 41(b) provides that if

24

a litigant “fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a

25

defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.” Dismissal may

26

be ordered by the Court sua sponte. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30

27

(1962). Dismissal of a civil action under Rule 41 may be appropriate to advance

28
2

1

the public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s need to

2

manage its docket, and to avoid the risk of prejudice to defendants. Omstead v.

3

Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

4

1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (analyzing factors supporting dismissal of Section 1983

5

actions).

6

Petitioner’s failure to prosecute this action warrants dismissal under

7

Rule 41(b). Petitioner failed to respond to the government’s dismissal motion and

8

the Court’s order requiring him to do so. (Docket # 5, 6.) The public, the Court,

9

and the government have a significant interest in the resolution of this case.

10

Petitioner, by contrast, has demonstrated a lack of interest in pursuing the action to

11

a decision on the merits, particularly now that he’s received the prison credit that

12

he sought. Moreover, given Petitioner’s failure to respond to the Court’s order,

13

there are no “less drastic sanctions” available to the Court other than a dismissal of

14

the action. Omstead, 594 F.3d at 1084. Rule 41 therefore provides an additional

15

basis for dismissing the action.

16

***

17

Petitioner’s case is moot, and he appears to have abandoned the action.

18
19

Accordingly, for the above reasons, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: May 25, 2016

22
23

___________________________________
HON. MANUEL L. REAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

24
25
26
27

____________________________________
HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
3