Alcala v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 29

ORDER DISMISSING Petition for failure to comply with a court order signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 9/19/2011. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

JONNIE ANGEL ALCALA,

10
11

1:08-cv-01676-DLB HC

Petitioner,
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER

v.

12
HECTOR RIOS, Warden, et.al.,

[Doc. 28]

13
Respondents.
14

/

15
Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
16
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to
17
the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge.
18
On May 11, 2009, the Court dismissed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus for
19
failure lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
20
On May 25, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case back to this
21
Court to allow Petitioner to amend the petition.
22
On August 2, 2011, the Court granted Petitioner leave to file an amended petition within
23
thirty days from the date of service. Petitioner has failed to comply with the Court’s order.
24
Accordingly, dismissal of the petition is warranted.
25
Local Rule 110 provides that a “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these
26
Local Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any
27
and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.@ District courts have the inherent
28
1

1

power to control their dockets and Ain the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions

2

including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d

3

829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s

4

failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.

5

See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with

6

local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to

7

comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833

8

F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)(dismissal for failure to comply with court order).

9

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the Court must

10

consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the

11

Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the Respondents; (4) the public

12

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and, (5) the availability of less drastic

13

alternatives. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856

14

F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988). The Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving

15

this litigation and the court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal, as this

16

case has been pending since November 3, 2008. The Court cannot hold this case in abeyance

17

indefinitely awaiting compliance by Petitioner. The third factor, risk of prejudice to

18

Respondents, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the

19

occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522,

20

524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on their

21

merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally,

22

given Petitioner’s noncompliance with the Court’s order, no lesser sanction is feasible.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
3b142a

September 19, 2011

/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2