Elias Castaneda v. M.C. Ewen
Filing
7
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this action be DISMISSED for Petitioner's failure to comply with a court order re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Elias Castaneda ; referred to Judge Ishii; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge; New Case Number is: 1:11-cv-01672 AWI GSA (HC), signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 03/02/2012. Objections to F&R due by 4/9/2012 (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ELIAS CASTANEDA,
12
1:11-CV-01672 GSA HC
Petitioner,
13
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE
v.
M.C. EWEN,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO
FOLLOW COURT ORDERs
[Docs. #3,5]
Respondent.
___________________________________/
[FIFTEEN DAY DEADLINE]
14
15
16
17
Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
18
§ 2254.
19
On October 4, 2011, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. On the same date,
20
the Court issued new case documentation as well as an order directing Petitioner to complete and
21
return a consent/decline form. After thirty days passed with no response from Petitioner, the Court
22
re-served the documentation and order on Petitioner on November 17, 2011. Again, Petitioner did
23
not respond. Therefore, on January 3, 2012, the Court issued a second order directing Petitioner to
24
complete and return a consent/decline form. Again, the allotted thirty days passed and Petitioner
25
failed to comply.
26
DISCUSSION
27
Local Rule 110 provides that a “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules
28
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia
cd
1
1
or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions
2
authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.@ District courts have the
3
inherent power to control their dockets and Ain the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions
4
including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829,
5
831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to
6
prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g.,
7
Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule);
8
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an
9
order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988)
10
(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprized of
11
address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to
12
comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for
13
lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). In determining whether to dismiss an
14
action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the
15
court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation;
16
(2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public
17
policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic
18
alternatives. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130;
19
Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24.
20
In the instant case, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this
21
litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal because this
22
case has been pending in this Court since October 4, 2011. The third factor, risk of prejudice to
23
defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from any
24
unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir.
25
1976). The fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, is greatly
26
outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure
27
to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives”
28
requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424.
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia
cd
2
1
ORDER
2
3
Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a District Judge to the
case.
4
RECOMMENDATION
5
6
Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for Petitioner's
failure to comply with a court order.
7
This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned District Judge pursuant to
8
the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the
9
United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fifteen (15) days after service of
10
the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file written objections with the Court. Such a
11
document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.”
12
The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
13
Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
14
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
Dated:
6i0kij
March 2, 2012
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia
cd
3
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?