Maceo Jones v. Casoin
Filing
9
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS by Judge George H. Wu. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that these actions be summarily dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (see document for further details) Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (hr)
JS-6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
MACEO JONES,
11
Petitioner,
12
Case Nos. 5:21-01942 GW (ADS);
5:21-02056 GW (ADS)
v.
13
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING
PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS
CASINO,1
Respondent.
14
15
16
I.
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court are two Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in
17
18
Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (collectively, “Petitions”) filed by
19
Petitioner Maceo Jones (“Petitioner”). In November 2021, Petitioner filed two Petitions
20
alleging different claims. See Case No. 5:21-01942 GW (ADS) (“First Petition”); Case
21
No. 5:21-02056 GW (ADS) (“Second Petition”). After screening the First Petition, the
22
Court issued an Order Regarding Screening of Petition (“OSP”) because Grounds One to
23
24
1
In 5:21-02056 GW (ADS), the Petition misspells the name of Warden Casino as “Casoin.”
1
Three appear to be moot due to Petitioner’s release from prison and Ground Four fails
2
to state a cognizable claim for habeas relief. (Case No. 5:21-01942 GW (ADS), Dkt. No.
3
7.) After screening the Second Petition, the Court issued an OSP because the claims do
4
not appear to be cognizable for habeas relief. (Case No. 5:21-02056 GW (ADS), Dkt. No.
5
5.) Petitioner did not file a response to the OSPs by the respective deadlines. The Court
6
received returned mail for the OSPs in each case. As a result, the Court issued an Order
7
to Show Cause Regarding Failure to Update Address (“OSC”) in each case. The OSC for
8
the First Petition ordered Petitioner to show cause by May 5, 2022 why this action
9
should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Case No. 5:21-01942 GW (ADS), Dkt.
10
No. 9.) Similarly, the OSC for the Second Petition ordered Petitioner to show cause by
11
May 2, 2022. (Case No. 5:21-02056 GW (ADS), Dkt. No. 7.) Again, the Court received
12
returned mail for the OSCs in each case. As of the date of this Order, Petitioner has not
13
filed a response to the OSCs or OSPs.
14
II.
15
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS
Petitioner has failed to prosecute these habeas petitions and comply with court
16
orders. Petitioner did not respond to multiple court orders. The OSPs and OSCs
17
expressly cautioned Petitioner that failure to respond would result in a recommendation
18
that the actions be dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure to obey court orders
19
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
20
Petitioner’s repeated failure to respond despite court orders to do so reflects a
21
lack of prosecution of the cases. In Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988), the
22
Ninth Circuit cited the following factors as relevant to the Court’s determination of
23
whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute: “(1) the public’s interest in
24
expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the
2
1
risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on
2
their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Id. at 1440.
3
Upon consideration of the five Carey factors, the Court finds that Petitioner’s
4
failure to prosecute his cases and failure to comply with the Court’s orders warrant
5
dismissal. The first two Carey factors—the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving
6
this litigation and the Court's interest in managing the docket—weigh in favor of
7
dismissal. The Court cannot hold these cases in abeyance indefinitely awaiting
8
Petitioner’s response to the Court’s directive. The third factor—risk of prejudice to
9
Respondent—also weighs in favor of dismissal since a presumption of injury arises from
10
the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West,
11
Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976) (stating that the “law presumes injury from
12
unreasonable delay”). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases
13
on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal.
14
Finally, Petitioner has already been cautioned of the consequences of his failure
15
to prosecute and ordered to show cause why the actions should not be dismissed.
16
Petitioner has been afforded the opportunity to do so yet has not responded. No
17
sanction lesser than dismissal is feasible here. Thus, dismissal of these actions is
18
warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
19
// // //
20
// // //
21
// // //
22
// // //
23
// // //
24
// // //
3
1
2
3
4
III.
CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that these actions be summarily dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
Dated: May 10, 2022
7
___ ______________________________
THE HONORABLE GEORGE H. WU
United States District Judge
8
Presented by:
9
____/s/ Autumn D. Spaeth __________
THE HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH
United States Magistrate Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
4
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?