Jones v. Timothy Filson, et al.
Filing
47
ORDER that the petition in this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; that petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability; Clerk directed to enter final judgment and CLOSE case. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 8/13/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
JOHNNY LEE JONES III,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
TIMOTHY FILSON, et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
)
_________________________________ )
On
January
8,
2018,
the
3:15-cv-00320-HDM-WGC
ORDER
court
entered
an
order
directing
21
petitioner to file a supplemental brief addressing why he is entitled
22
to equitable tolling based on (1) his use of certain medication from
23
December 2005 through January 2007, and (2) his trial counsel’s
24
failure to file a direct appeal. (ECF No. 41). On February 28, 2018,
25
the court granted petitioner an extension of time to file his
26
supplemental brief, to and including March 26, 2018.
27
not file any response to the court’s order.
28
On
May
14,
2018,
the
court
ordered
Petitioner did
petitioner
to
file
a
supplemental brief as set forth above within fifteen days of the date
1
of the order. (ECF No. 44). The court advised petitioner that his
2
failure to do so might result in the dismissal of this action with
3
prejudice.
4
On May 29, 2018, petitioner filed a motion for extension of time
5
to comply with the court’s order, seeking an additional thirty days.
6
(ECF No. 45).
7
deadline to and including June 28, 2018.
8
petitioner has not filed any response to the court’s order, whether
9
a supplemental brief or a motion for extension of time.
The court granted petitioner’s motion, extending the
(ECF No. 46).
To date,
10
As petitioner has failed to comply with the court’s orders, the
11
court considers whether this action should be dismissed as a sanction.
12
The court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction
13
of dismissal: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of
14
litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its own docket; (3) the
15
risk of prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring
16
disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less
17
drastic sanctions.
18
841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130
19
(9th Cir. 1987). A warning that the action will be dismissed for
20
failure to follow a court order is a less drastic alternative
21
sufficient to satisfy the last factor. See Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33
22
& n.1.
See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837,
23
As the court previously warned petitioner that this action would
24
be dismissed if he did not comply with the court’s order, the fifth
25
factor weighs in favor of dismissal. In addition, this action has been
26
pending without resolution of an important threshold issue for more
27
than seven months, despite the court’s repeated efforts to address the
28
matter. The first and second factors therefore favor dismissal. As
2
1
dismissal would be with prejudice, there is little risk of prejudice
2
to the respondents. The third factor also therefore favors dismissal.
3
While the fourth factor of course weighs against dismissal, it is not
4
sufficient to outweigh all the other factors.
5
Accordingly, as petitioner has failed to comply with this court’s
6
orders, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition in this case will
7
be, and hereby is, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
8
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner is DENIED a certificate of
9
appealability, as jurists of reason would not find the court’s
10
11
12
13
dismissal of this action to be debateable or wrong.
The clerk of court shall enter final judgment accordingly and
CLOSE this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
DATED: This 13th day of August, 2018.
15
16
_________________________________
HOWARD D. MCKIBBEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?