Meraz v. Myer

Filing 4

ORDER directing Clerk of Court to assign District Judge. FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/4/2017. New Case Number is 1:16-cv-01472-AWI-JLT-(HC). Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 1/18/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EFRAIN BARAJAS MERAZ, Petitioner, 12 13 Case No. 1:16-cv-01472 JLT (HC) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 14 CHRISTIE MYER, Respondent. 15 16 17 On October 3, 2016, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. 18 The Court subsequently issued new case documents and an order directing Petitioner to notify 19 the Court whether he consents or declines to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. On 20 October 18, 2016, the documents were returned by the United States Postal Service as 21 undeliverable. Because Petitioner has failed to keep the Court apprised of his address and the 22 Court has no way of communicating with Petitioner, the Court will recommend the petition be 23 dismissed. 24 25 DISCUSSION Local Rule 110 provides that a “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 26 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 27 sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” District 28 courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they 1 1 may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. 2 Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with 3 prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or 4 failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 54 (9th Cir. 1995) 5 (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 61 (9th 6 Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 7 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local 8 rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 9 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson 10 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to 11 comply with local rules). In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, 12 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider 13 several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s 14 need 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 alternatives. 16 Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260 61; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Thompson, 782 17 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 resolving this 19 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal because 20 this case has been pending in this Court since October 3, 2016, with no further communication 21 from Petitioner. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of 22 dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from any unreasonable delay in prosecuting an 23 action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor, public 24 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor 25 of dismissal. Finally, there are no less drastic alternatives since Petitioner has failed to keep the 26 Court apprised of his current address; thus, the Court has no way of communicating with 27 Petitioner. 28 2 ORDER 1 2 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a 3 District Judge to the case. RECOMMENDATION 4 5 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for Petitioner's 6 failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. 7 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned District Court Judge, 8 pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of 9 Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within ten days after 10 service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file written objections with the 11 Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 12 Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 13 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 14 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 15 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 4, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?