Anderson v. Brown et al
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL. Show Cause Response due by 5/31/2017. Signed by Judge Saundra B Armstrong on 5/3/17. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/3/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dtmS, COURT STAFF).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DALE THOMAS ANDERSON,
Case No: C 10-2020 SBA (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,
By Order dated December 9, 2010, the Court denied Respondent’s motion to
dismiss, and granted Petitioner’s request to stay the action so that he could return to state
court to exhaust his unexhausted claims. Dkt. 6 at 2. The Order stated, inter alia, that:
“Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies
(docket no. 4) is DENIED without prejudice to refiling if Petitioner fails diligently to
pursue exhaustion in state court of his unexhausted claims.” Id.
The Court administratively closed the action during the pendency of the stay. Id. at
3. In addition, the Court directed that: “[Petitioner] must file quarterly reports describing
the progress of his state court proceedings, commencing thirty (30) days from the date of
this Order and continuing every ninety (90) days thereafter until his state court proceedings
are terminated. He must also attach to his status reports copies of the cover page of any
document that he files with or receives from the California Supreme Court relating to the
claims.” Id. at 2-3 (emphasis in original). In violation of that Order, Petitioner has failed to
file any status reports. The Court has reviewed the California Court’s website, but has been
unable to locate any information regarding whether Petitioner made any further efforts to
exhaust his unexhausted claims.
District courts may dismiss an action based on the failure of a habeas petitioner to
comply with a court order or for lack of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash
R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir.
2002) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition because of petitioner’s disobedience with
orders setting filing deadlines); see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir.1995)
(affirming dismissal of prisoner’s civil rights complaint for failure to file opposition to
motion to dismiss as required by local rule). In determining whether to dismiss a claim for
disobedience with a court order or the failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b), the court
must weigh the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of
litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the
defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the
availability of less drastic alternatives. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642; Ferdik v. Bonzelet,
963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this
Order is filed, each party shall file a Certificate of Counsel to explain why the case should
or should not be dismissed. The Certificate shall set forth the nature of the cause, its
present status, the reason why a final determination of the action has not been sought or the
action otherwise terminated, any basis for opposing dismissal and its expected course if not
dismissed. FAILURE TO FULLY COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER WILL BE DEEMED
SUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO DISMISS THE ACTION, WITHOUT FURTHER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
Senior United States District Judge
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?