Winfield v. Parks

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 12/13/13 ordering this cate is dismissed for petitioner's failure to pay the appropriate filing fee. The clerk of the court is directed to close this case. CASE CLOSED. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PAUL WINFIELD,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:12-CV-2384-CMK-P

vs.

ORDER

RICHARD PARKS,

15

Respondent.

16

/

17

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

18

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has consented to Magistrate Judge

19

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the

20

action.

21

On September 30, 2013, the court denied petitioner’s application for leave to

22

proceed in forma pauperis, and ordered petitioner to pay the filing fee for this action within 30

23

days. Petitioner was warned that failure to comply may result in dismissal of this action for lack

24

of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 11-110. To

25

date, petitioner has failed to comply.

26

///
1

1

The court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of

2

dismissal. See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v.

3

U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's

4

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

5

the risk of prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

6

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran,

7

46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an

8

appropriate sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor.

9

See Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is

10

appropriate where there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

11

1423 (9th Cir. 1986). Dismissal has also been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to

12

comply with an order to file an amended complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

13

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992).

14
15

Having considered these factors, and in light of petitioner’s failure to pay the
filing fee as directed, the court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate.

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

17

1.

This case is dismissed for petitioner’s failure to pay the appropriate filing

2.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

18
19

fee; and

20
21
22
23

DATED: December 13, 2013
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
2