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)

Download PDF
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?