Hayden v. Searman
Filing
8
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this action be DISMISSED for Plaintiff's failure to comply with a Court Order; Further the Court orders the Clerk of the Court to assign a District Court Judge to the present matter; Re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Eugene Hayden, Sr.; Referred to Judge O'Neill, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 05/30/14. Objections to F&R due by 7/7/2014(Martin-Gill, S) New case number is: 1:14-cv-00514 LJO-MJS (HC)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
Case No. 1:14-cv-00514 MJS (HC)
EUGENE HAYDEN, SR.,
12
v.
13
14
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
Plaintiff, DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO
FOLLOW COURT ORDER
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
TO ASSIGN DISTRICT COURT JUDGE TO
THE PRESENT MATTER
M.E. SEARMAN, Warden,
Defendant.
15
16
17
On April 11, 2014, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner
18
did not sign the petition. On April 25, 2014, the Court ordered Petitioner to submit a
19
signed declaration stating that he submitted the petition. (ECF No. 5.) Petitioner was
20
provided twenty (20) days to respond to the order and was forewarned that failure to
21
respond would result in the dismissal of the petition. (Id.) Over twenty days have passed
22
and Petitioner has not filed a response to the order.
23
I.
DISCUSSION
24
Local Rule 110 provides that "[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with
25
these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of
26
any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court." District courts have the
27
inherent power to control their dockets and "in the exercise of that power, they may
28
impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case." Thompson v.
1
1
Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with
2
prejudice, based on a party's failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order,
3
or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th
4
Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d
5
1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring
6
amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988)
7
(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court
8
apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)
9
(dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,
10
1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local
11
rules). In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey
12
a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several
13
factors: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need
14
to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy
15
favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic
16
alternatives. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Malone, 833 F.2d at
17
130; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24.
18
In the instant case, the Court finds that the public's interest in expeditiously
19
resolving this litigation and the Court's interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of
20
dismissal because it does not appear that Plaintiff has made a good faith effort to
21
prosecute this matter. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in
22
favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from any unreasonable delay
23
in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The
24
fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, is greatly
25
outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal. Finally, a court's warning to a party that
26
his failure to obey the court's order will result in dismissal satisfies the "consideration of
27
alternatives" requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33;
28
Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. Here, the Court's order was clear that dismissal would
2
1
result from non-compliance with the order. (See ECF No. 5 ["Petitioner is forewarned
2
that failure to comply with a Court order will result in dismissal of the petition pursuant to
3
Local Rule 110.")
4
II.
RECOMMENDATION
5
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED
6
for Plaintiff's failure to comply with a court order. Further, the Court ORDERS the Clerk
7
of Court to assign a District Court Judge to the present matter.
8
This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States
9
District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 of the United States Code
10
section 636 (b)(1)(B). Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party
11
may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a
12
document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
13
Recommendation." The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to
14
Title 28 of the United States Code section 636(b)(1)(C). Finally, Plaintiff is advised that
15
failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the
16
District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
17
18
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
May 30, 2014
/s/
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?