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)

Download PDF
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?