Guerra v. Williams et al
Filing
10
ORDER Granting 7 Respondents' Motion to Dismiss. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Clerk of Court shall enter final judgment accordingly, in favor of respondents and against petitioner, dismissing this action without prejudice. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/2/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
YOEL GUERRA,
9
Petitioner,
10
2:11-cv-01842-JCM-RJJ
ORDER
vs.
11
12
BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al.,
13
Respondents.
14
15
This habeas matter under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 comes before the court on respondents’
16
motion (#7) to dismiss. Respondents contend that the single ground presented challenging
17
petitioner’s sentence is not exhausted and that the ground in any event fails to state a claim
18
upon which relief may be granted. Petitioner has not filed an opposition.
19
Under Local Rule 7-2(d), “[t]he failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities
20
in response to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion." When an
21
opposing party receives notice and is given sufficient time to respond to a motion to dismiss,
22
a district court does not abuse its discretion in granting the motion based on failure to comply
23
with a local rule. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir.1995). Before dismissing a
24
case for failing to follow local rules, the district court must weigh the following factors: (1) the
25
public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its
26
docket; (3) the risk of prejudice; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their
27
merits and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,
28
1423 (9th Cir.1986).
1
In the present case, petitioner was given appropriate notice of respondents’ motion to
2
dismiss both when the motion was served and further when he was provided a Klingele notice
3
by the court. He has had ample time to respond to the motion to dismiss, including an
4
appropriate allowance of time for mailing and docketing delays, but he has not done so. The
5
court has weighed the above factors. It finds that the public’s interest in expeditious
6
resolution of litigation, particularly litigation involving the validity of state criminal judgments,
7
as well as the court’s need to manage its docket, outweigh the risk of prejudice and the
8
remaining factors. The motion to dismiss therefore will be granted due to petitioner’s failure
9
to respond to the motion under the local rule.
10
11
IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED, pursuant to Local Rule LR 7-2(d), that respondents’
motion (#7) to dismiss is GRANTED and that the petition is DISMISSED.
12
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Jurists of
13
reason would not find the court’s grant of the unopposed motion to dismiss and dismissal of
14
the petition to be debatable or incorrect.
15
16
17
The clerk of court shall enter final judgment accordingly, in favor of respondents and
against petitioner, dismissing this action without prejudice.
DATED: March 2, 2012
18
19
20
21
_________________________________
JAMES C. MAHAN
United States District Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-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?