Christopher Abel Ruiz v. David Long

Filing 21

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Otis D Wright, II. It is Ordered that Judgment be entered denying and dismissing the Petition without prejudice. (Attachments: # 1 R&R) (sp)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 CHRISTOPHER ABEL RUIZ, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) DAVID LONG, ) ) Respondent. ) ___________________________________) NO. ED CV 12-839-ODW(E) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable 19 Otis D. Wright, II, 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” and a “Motion for Stay and Abeyance, etc.” on 27 May 25, 2012. 28 Abeyance and Request for Reconsideration of Order Requiring Respondent Respondent filed a “Response to Motion for Stay and 1 File an Answer to the Petition” (“the Response”) on August 22, 2012. 2 Petitioner failed to file a Reply to the Response. 3 4 On August 31, 2012, the Magistrate Judge ordered Petitioner to 5 file a Reply to the Response within thirty (30) days of August 31, 6 2012. 7 to file a Reply may result in dismissal of the Petition.” 8 Nevertheless, Petitioner again failed to file a timely Reply. The Magistrate Judge’s Order cautioned that “[f]ailure timely 9 10 On October 2, 2012, the Magistrate Judge once again ordered 11 Petitioner to file a Reply to the Response, this time setting the 12 deadline at twenty (20) days from October 2, 2012. 13 Judge’s Order again cautioned that “[f]ailure timely to file a Reply 14 may result in dismissal of the Petition.” 15 again failed to file a timely Reply. The Magistrate Nevertheless, Petitioner 16 DISCUSSION 17 18 19 The Petition should be denied and dismissed without prejudice for 20 failure to prosecute. 21 despite two Court Orders that he do so. 22 to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases by 23 dismissing actions for failure to prosecute. 24 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// Petitioner failed to file a timely Reply, 2 The Court has inherent power Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 1 RECOMMENDATION 2 3 For all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the 4 Court issue an Order: (1) accepting and adopting this Report and 5 Recommendation; and (2) directing that Judgment be entered denying and 6 dismissing the Petition without prejudice. 7 8 DATED: November 13, 2012. 9 10 11 ______________/S/_________________ CHARLES F. EICK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 No notice of appeal pursuant to the

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?