(HC) Foreman v. State of California

Filing 8

ORDER to assign District Judge. FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to dismiss Petition 1 signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 8/2/2022. Referred to Judge Jennifer L. Thurston; Objections to F&R due within 14-Days. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TREVON LEE FOREMAN,

12

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

Case No. 1:22-cv-00589-HBK (HC)
ORDER TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS PETITION1

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
(Doc. No. 1)

15

Respondent.
FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

16
17

Petitioner Trevon Lee Foreman proceeding pro se initiated this action by filing a petition

18
19

for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on May 13, 2022 in the Sacramento Division of

20

the Court. (Doc. No. 1). The Petition raises three grounds: ineffective assistance of counsel;

21

violation of Petitioner’s right to an impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment; and violation of

22

Petitioner’s due process and equal protection rights. (See generally Doc. No. 1). After transfer to

23

this Court on May 18, 2022, the Court issued new case documents, an order directing Petitioner

24

to complete and return the form indicating consent or decline to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate

25

Judge, and an order authorizing in forma pauperis status. (Doc. Nos. 4-6). On May 27, 2022,

26
27
28

1

This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302
(E.D. Cal. 2022).

1

and again on June 9, 2022, the orders served on Petitioner were returned by the U.S. Postal

2

Service as “undeliverable – not in custody.” (See docket). As of the date of this Findings and

3

Recommendation, Petitioner has not filed a notice of change of address, nor has he contacted the

4

Court.

5

As an initial matter, the Court notes that were it to conduct a preliminary review under

6

Rule 4, the Petition fails to include basic information including his current place of confinement,

7

the date of the judgment of conviction, the length of his sentence, and the nature of the offense

8

involved. (See Doc. No. 1 at 1). In addition, Petitioner admits he has not exhausted any of the

9

grounds raised in his Petition because “all the grounds for a[n] appeal are federal grounds.

10

Therefore there are no legal need to file a state court appeal.” (Id. at 2). See 28 U.S.C. §

11

2254(b)(1) (a petitioner in state custody who wishes to proceed on a federal petition for a writ of

12

habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies). And finally, as of the date of these Findings

13

and Recommendations, from the Court’s review of the California docket, Petitioner’s direct

14

appeal remains pending in the Fifth Appellate District Court. 2 See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S.

15

37, 44 (1971) (a federal court generally cannot interfere with pending state criminal proceedings);

16

see also Page v. King, 932 F.3d 898, 901–902 (9th Cir. 2019) (in the habeas context, “[w]here . . .

17

no final judgment has been entered in state court, the state court proceeding is plainly ongoing for

18

the purposes of Younger.”)

19
20

That said, as set forth herein, the undersigned nonetheless recommends that the Petition be
dismissed for failure to prosecute.

21

I. APPPLICABLE LAW

22

This court’s Local Rules require litigants to keep the court appraised of their current

23

address, specifically providing:

24

“[a] party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and
opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. If mail
directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by

25
26
2

27
28

The Court takes judicial notice of the California Courts Appellate Courts Case Information online
database pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which lists no appellate or supreme court
habeas cases for Petitioner. See https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search.cfm?dist=0 (search “Search
by Party” for “Trevon Lee Foreman”).

2

1
2
3

the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court
and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a
current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice
for failure to prosecute.”

4

Local Rule 183(b) (E.D. Cal. 2022). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the court to

5

involuntarily dismiss an action when a litigant fails to prosecute an action or fails to comply with

6

other Rules or with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see Applied Underwriters v.

7

Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 889 (9th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted). Local Rule 110 similarly

8

permits the court to impose sanctions on a party who fails to comply with the court’s Rules or any

9

order of the court.

10

Before dismissing an action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, the court must consider: (1) the

11

public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage a docket; (3)

12

the risk of prejudice to defendant; (4) public policy favoring disposition on the merits; and (5) the

13

availability of less drastic sanctions. See Applied Underwriters, 913 F.3d at 889 (noting that

14

these five factors “must” be analyzed before a Rule 41 involuntarily dismissal) (emphasis added);

15

Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (reviewing five factors and

16

independently reviewing the record because district court did not make finding as to each); but

17

see Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000) (listing the same, but

18

noting the court need not make explicit findings as to each) (emphasis added); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

19

963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal of pro se § 1983 action when plaintiff

20

did not amend caption to remove “et al” as the court directed and reiterating that an explicit

21

finding of each factor is not required by the district court).

22
23

II. ANALYSIS
The undersigned considers the above-stated factors and concludes the majority of the

24

above factors favor dismissal in this case. The expeditious resolution of litigation is deemed to be

25

in the public interest. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.2d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 1999).

26

Turning to the second factor, the court’s need to efficiently manage its docket cannot be

27

overstated. This court has “one of the heaviest caseloads in the nation,” and due to unfilled

28
3

1

judicial vacancies, which is further exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, operates under a

2

declared judicial emergency. See Amended Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial

3

Emergency in the Eastern District of California. The court’s time is better spent on its other

4

matters than needlessly consumed managing a case with a recalcitrant litigant. Indeed, “trial

5

courts do not have time to waste on multiple failures by aspiring litigants to follow the rules and

6

requirements of our courts.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 644 (9th Cir. 2002) (Trott, J.,

7

concurring in affirmance of district court’s involuntary dismissal with prejudice of habeas petition

8

where petitioner failed to timely respond to court order and noting “the weight of the docket-

9

managing factor depends upon the size and load of the docket, and those in the best position to

10

know what that is are our beleaguered trial judges.”). Delays inevitably have the inherent risk

11

that evidence will become stale or witnesses’ memories will fade or be unavailable and can

12

prejudice a respondent. See Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 57 (1968). Finally, less drastic

13

remedies in lieu of dismissal, such as, directing petitioner to submit an updated address, or issuing

14

an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Local

15

Rules, for failing to exhaust his grounds at the state court level, and/or dismissal under Younger

16

would be an act of futility because any such order would be returned without delivery.

17

Additionally, the instant dismissal is a dismissal without prejudice, which is a lesser sanction than

18

a dismissal with prejudice.

19

Contrary to Local Rule 183(b), more than 63 days have passed since mail was returned as

20

undeliverable and petitioner has not updated his mailing address or otherwise contacted the court.

21

After considering the factors set forth supra and binding case law, the undersigned recommends

22

dismissal, without prejudice, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 and Local Rules 110 and 183(b).

23

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

24
25

The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case.
It is further RECOMMENDED:

26

1. This case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

27

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to terminate any pending motions/deadlines and

28

close this case.
4

1

NOTICE TO PARTIES

2

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge

3

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14)

4

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, a party may file written

5

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

6

Findings and Recommendations.” Parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

7

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,

8

838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

9
10
11

Dated:

August 2, 2022
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5