Hayden v. Searman

Filing 22

ORDER DISMISSING Petition Due to Petitioner's Failure to Follow a Court Order re 21 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/8/16. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

1:14-cv-00514 MJS HC
EUGENE HAYDEN, SR.,

12
13

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION DUE TO
Petitioner, PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO FOLLOW A
COURT ORDER

v.

14
15

[Doc. 21]
M.E. SEARMAN, Warden,
Respondent.

16
17
18

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

19

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Both parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction under

20

28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF Nos. 18-19.)

21

On February 26, 2016, the Court served an order of case reassignment on

22

Petitioner. (ECF No. 20.) On March 9, 2016, the order served on Petitioner was returned

23

by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable. Petitioner was ordered to show cause why

24

the petition should not be dismissed without prejudice for Petitioner’s failure to inform the

25

Court of his current address. (ECF No. 21.) Petitioner was ordered to inform the Court

26

and any opposing counsel of his current address within thirty (30) days after service of

27

the order. Over thirty (30) days have passed, and Petitioner has not responded to the

28

order to show cause.
1

1

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

2

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

3

the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the respondents; (4)

4

the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of

5

less drastic alternatives. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423-24 (9th Cir. 1986);

6

Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). The Court finds that the public’s

7

interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the

8

docket weigh in favor of dismissal as this case has been pending since April 11, 2014.

9

The Court cannot hold this case in abeyance indefinitely based on Petitioner’s failure to

10

respond to an order of the court. The third factor, risk of prejudice to respondents, also

11

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

12

unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524

13

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

14

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

15

Petitioner’s failure to communicate with the Court despite an order requiring him to do

16

so, no lesser sanction is feasible.

17

Petitioner has failed to prosecute the present matter by failing to follow a court

18

order. Therefore, the petition must be dismissed.

19

ORDER

20
21

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice.

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 8, 2016

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2