Gulbronson v. Verderosa

Filing 16

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 10/12/2016 DISMISSING this case for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court rules and orders; and the Clerk shall close this case. CASE CLOSED.(Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC CONRAD GULBRONSON, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:15-cv-0520-CMK-P vs. ORDER KAMALA D. HARRIS, 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 May 4, 2016, the court dismissed petitioner’s amended petition and directed 22 petitioner to file a second amended petition within 30 days. Petitioner was warned that failure to 23 file an amended petition may result in dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution and failure 24 to comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 110. Petitioner failed to comply, and on 25 August 2, 2016, the court issued an order for plaintiff to show cause why this action should not 26 be dismissed for failure to file his amended petition. To date, no response has been received. 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 Having considered these factors, and in light of petitioner’s failure to file an 15 amended petition as directed, and failure to respond to the court’s order to show cause, the court 16 finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. 19 20 This case is dismissed for petitioner’s failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court rules and orders; and 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 21 22 23 24 DATED: October 12, 2016 ______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 2

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?