Jorge Garcia Pichardo v. M Stainer
Filing
15
ORDER DISMISSING Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Failure to Comply with Court Order signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 10/09/2012. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
JORGE GARCIA PICHARDO,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
vs.
M. STAINER,
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.:12-cv-01254-DLB (HC)
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDER
[Doc. 14]
17
Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
18
19
20
21
U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to the jurisdiction
of the United States magistrate judge. Local Rule 305(b).
On August 20, 2012, the Court issued an order to show cause as to why the petition
22
should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust the state court remedies, and Petitioner was
23
directed to file a response within thirty days. Over thirty (30) days have passed and Petitioner
24
has failed to file a response.
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
27
any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the
28
1
1
inherent power to control their dockets and in the exercise of that power, they may impose
2
3
4
5
sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth.,
782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a
party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with
6
local rules. See e.g. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)(dismissal for
7
noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)
8
(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v.
9
U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)(dismissal for failure to comply with court
10
11
12
13
14
order).
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the Court must
consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the
Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the Respondents; (4) the public
policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and, (5) the availability of less drastic
15
alternatives. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856
16
17
18
19
F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988). The Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving
this litigation and the court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal, as this
case has been pending since April 11, 2012. The Court cannot hold this case in abeyance
20
indefinitely awaiting compliance by Petitioner. The third factor, risk of prejudice to
21
Respondents, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the
22
occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522,
23
524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on their
24
merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Petitioner
25
was advised in the prior order that the failure to comply with the order would result in the action
26
being dismissed for failure to comply with a court order. Local Rule 110. Given Petitioner’s
27
noncompliance with the Court’s order, no lesser sanction is feasible.
28
2
1
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1.
4
5
The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed; and
2.
3
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
Dated:
7
8
9
/s/ Dennis
October 9, 2012
L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
3b142a
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?