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)

Download PDF
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?