Thomas Resendez v. John Sutton
Filing
20
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Andrew J. Guilford for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 19 . The Court accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying and dismissing the Petition without prejudice. (Attachments: # 1 Report and Recommendation) (dml) (Attachment 1 replaced on 6/28/2017) (dml).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
THOMAS RESENDEZ,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
JOHN SUTTON, WARDEN,
)
)
)
Respondent.
)
______________________________)
NO. CV 16-8611-AG(E)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable
19
Andrew J. Guilford, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28
20
U.S.C. section 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States
21
District Court for the Central District of California.
22
PROCEEDINGS
23
24
25
Petitioner filed a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a
26
Person in State Custody” on November 18, 2016.
27
Answer on February 13, 2017.
28
Answer within the allotted time.
Respondent filed an
Petitioner failed to file a Reply to the
1
On March 10, 2017, the Magistrate Judge ordered that Petitioner
2
file a Reply to the Answer within twenty (20) days of March 10, 2017.
3
The Magistrate Judge cautioned Petitioner that failure to do so “may
4
result in the denial and dismissal of the Petition.”
5
Petitioner again failed to file a Reply to the Answer within the
6
allotted time.
Nevertheless,
7
DISCUSSION
8
9
10
The Petition should be denied and dismissed without prejudice.
11
Petitioner has failed to file a timely Reply, despite a court order
12
that he do so.
13
and expeditious disposition of cases by dismissing actions for failure
14
to prosecute.
15
Court has considered the factors recited in Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963
16
F.2d 1258, 1260-62 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992), and
17
has concluded that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate.
18
particular, any less drastic alternative would not be effective under
19
the circumstances of this case.
The Court has inherent power to achieve the orderly
Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962).
The
In
20
RECOMMENDATION
21
22
23
For all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the
24
Court issue an Order: (1) accepting and adopting this Report and
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
2
1
Recommendation; and (2) directing that Judgment be entered denying and
2
dismissing the Petition without prejudice.
3
4
DATED: April 5, 2017.
5
6
7
/S/
CHARLES F. EICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
1
2
NOTICE
Reports and Recommendations are not appealable to the Court of
3
Appeals, but may be subject to the right of any party to file
4
objections as provided in the Local Rules Governing the Duties of
5
Magistrate Judges and review by the District Judge whose initials
6
appear in the docket number.
7
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should be filed until entry of
8
the judgment of the District Court.
No notice of appeal pursuant to the
9
If the District Judge enters judgment adverse to Petitioner, the
10
District Judge will, at the same time, issue or deny a certificate of
11
appealability.
12
and Recommendation, the parties may file written arguments regarding
13
whether a certificate of appealability should issue.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Within twenty (20) days of the filing of this Report
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?