(HC) Thomas v. The Superior Court of Madera County, No. 1:2010cv00200 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED for Failure to follow Court Order 12 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/13/2010, Referred to Judge Ishii (Objections to F&R due by 8/16/2010) (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Thomas v. The Superior Court of Madera County Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 RAYSHON THOMAS, 12 13 14 15 16 17 ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) ) THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MADERA ) COUNTY, ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) 1:10-CV-00200 AWI GSA HC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO FOLLOW A COURT ORDER [Doc. #12] 18 Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 19 § 2254. 20 On January 13, 2010, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following a 21 preliminary review of the petition, on May 11, 2010, the undersigned issued an order dismissing the 22 petition for failure to state a discernable claim and failure to name a proper respondent. Petitioner 23 was granted thirty (30) days to file an amended petition curing the defects. Petitioner requested 24 additional time to file an amended petition, and the Court granted his request by extending the 25 deadline an additional thirty (30) days. However, the order granting the extension was returned by 26 the U.S. Postal Service as “Undeliverable, Refused.” The time allotted has now passed, and 27 Petitioner has not complied with the court order. 28 U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia cd 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 DISCUSSION 2 Local Rule 110 provides that a “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 3 or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions 4 authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.@ District courts have the 5 inherent power to control their dockets and Ain the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions 6 including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 7 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to 8 prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., 9 Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); 10 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an 11 order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) 12 (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprized of 13 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to 14 comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for 15 lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). In determining whether to dismiss an 16 action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the 17 court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 18 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 19 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 20 alternatives. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; 21 Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24. 22 In the instant case, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 23 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal because this 24 case has been pending in this Court since January 13, 2010. The third factor, risk of prejudice to 25 defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from any 26 unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 27 1976). The fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, is greatly 28 outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia cd 2 1 to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 2 requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The 3 Court’s order to file an amended petition was clear that dismissal would result from non-compliance 4 with the Court's order. 5 RECOMMENDATION 6 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for 7 Petitioner's failure to comply with a court order. 8 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, United 9 States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of 10 the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 11 Within thirty (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file written 12 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 13 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall 14 be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The Court will then 15 review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised 16 that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 17 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: 6i0kij July 13, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia cd 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
