Kendricks v. People of the State of Californa

Filing 10

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 01/08/2015. Show Cause Response due by 2/10/2015. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
)
)
Respondent.
)
TORRANCE KENDRICKS,

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01374-JLT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PETITION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE
TO PROSECUTE
30-DAY DEADLINE

16
17

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

18

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner filed the instant petition on August 27, 2014. (Doc. 1). On

19

September 25, 2014, Petitioner filed his written consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge for

20

all purposes.

21
22

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
After conducting a preliminary screening of the original petition, the Court, on September 8,

23

2014, ordered Petitioner to file an amended petition. (Doc. 8). In that order, the Court explained that

24

lumping various disparate constitutional claims together was impractical and made the Court’s habeas

25

review responsibility unnecessarily difficult. The Court also pointed out that Petitioner had named an

26

improper respondent, thus depriving the Court of personal jurisdiction. The September 8, 2014 order

27

gave Petitioner thirty days within which to file a first amended petition rectifying the problems

28

identified in that order. To date, Petitioner has failed to respond, except to consent to the jurisdiction
1

1

of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 9). Petitioner has not communicated with the Court in over three

2

months.
DISCUSSION

3
4

The Court has the inherent authority to dismiss a habeas corpus petition if the petitioner fails to

5

pursue his claims in a timely manner. In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of

6

prosecution, the court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution

7

of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the Respondents; (4)

8

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

9

alternatives. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d

10

1439 (9th Cir. 1988).

11

However, before proceeding to an analysis of whether the petition should be dismissed, the

12

Court will permit Petitioner to respond to this Order to Show Cause and show good cause why the

13

petition should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Petitioner’s failure to respond to this Order to

14

Show Cause, or, in lieu of a response, to submit a first amended petition within the time set forth in

15

this Order for a response, shall result in the dismissal of the original petition for failure to prosecute.
ORDER

16
17

For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

18

1. Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within 30 days of the date of service of

19

this Order why the Petition should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

20
21

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order may result in an Order
dismissing the Petition pursuant to Local Rule 110.

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 8, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2