Akili B. Al Saif Allah v. Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles

Filing 8

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew, re Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254) 1 . The Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. A certificate of appealability will not issue. The Court finds that jurists of reason would agree that Petitioner has failed to prosecute this case. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). (See Order for details.) (es)

O

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION

AKILI B. AL SAIF ALLAH,

No. CV 21-08959-RSWL (DFM)

Petitioner,

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING
PETITION

v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
Respondent.

BACKGROUND
On November 12, 2021, Petitioner Akili B. Al Saif Allah, proceeding pro
se, filed a document in this Court titled Petition for Writ of
Mandate/Prohibition. See Dkt. 1 (“Petition”). Petitioner alleges that he is the
defendant in a criminal case in the Los Angeles County Superior Court entitled
People v. Asaifallah, No. BA488797. See id. at 1. He alleges having filed in
that court a “Commercial Affidavit” to challenge that court’s subject matter
and personal jurisdiction. Id. at 2. He alleges that that court improperly
overruled his Commercial Affidavit under California’s procedural rules. See id.
at 2-3, 33-35, 38-39.

On November 24, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order to
show cause noting that certain features of the Petition suggest that it was
mistakenly filed in this Court. See Dkt. 3 at 1. The magistrate judge ordered
Petitioner to either (1) file a Notice of Dismissal form, or (2) show cause why
the Petition should not be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim and
under the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971). See
id. at 3. The magistrate judge expressly warned that a failure to respond might
result in the dismissal of the action for the reasons above and for failure to
prosecute. See id. Petitioner did not respond.
On January 14, 2022, the magistrate judge issued an order to show cause
why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Dkt. 4.
The order again expressly warned Petitioner of the consequences of failing to
respond. See id. Petitioner did not respond.
On March 17, 2022, the magistrate judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice
for failure to prosecute. See Dkt. 6. However, on April 8, 2022, the Report and
Recommendation was returned to the Court. See Dkt. 7. The return mailing
indicated that Petitioner had been released from the institution associated with
his address of record. See id. at 1. Petitioner has not filed a notice of change of
address and the 14 days provided under Local Rule 41-6 for doing so have
passed.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner has failed to respond to multiple court orders and failed to
keep the Court informed of his current address. This is a failure to prosecute
and warrants dismissal. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30
(1962); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
In Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988), the Ninth Circuit cited
the following factors as relevant to the Court’s determination whether to
2

dismiss an action for failure to prosecute: “(1) the public’s interest in
expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket;
(3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring
disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic
sanctions.” Id. at 1440.
Here, the first, second, and fifth Carey factors militate in favor of
dismissal. The Court’s interest in achieving an expeditious resolution of this
matter and its need to manage its docket both favor a dismissal. As a result of
Petitioner’s failure to respond to court orders and failure to keep the Court
informed of his current address, this action has been and will continue to be
stalemated. See Dkts. 3-4, 6-7. While the Court finds that the third and fourth
Carey factors do not support dismissal, the Court has concluded that the other
factors in this instance outweigh the third and fourth factors.
CONCLUSION
The Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. A certificate of
appealability will not issue. The Court finds that jurists of reason would agree
that Petitioner has failed to prosecute this case. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
Date: May 9, 2022

__/S/ RONALD S.W. LEW__
RONALD S.W. LEW
United States District Judge

Presented by:
___________________________
DOUGLAS F. McCORMICK
United States Magistrate Judge

3