(HC) Hayden v. Searman, No. 1:2014cv00514 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this action be DISMISSED for Plaintiff's failure to comply with a Court Order; Further the Court orders the Clerk of the Court to assign a District Court Judge to the present matter; Re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Eugene Hayden, Sr.; Referred to Judge O'Neill, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 05/30/14. Objections to F&R due by 7/7/2014(Martin-Gill, S) New case number is: 1:14-cv-00514 LJO-MJS (HC)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 Case No. 1:14-cv-00514 MJS (HC) EUGENE HAYDEN, SR., 12 v. 13 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO Plaintiff, DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO FOLLOW COURT ORDER ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT COURT JUDGE TO THE PRESENT MATTER M.E. SEARMAN, Warden, Defendant. 15 16 17 On April 11, 2014, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner 18 did not sign the petition. On April 25, 2014, the Court ordered Petitioner to submit a 19 signed declaration stating that he submitted the petition. (ECF No. 5.) Petitioner was 20 provided twenty (20) days to respond to the order and was forewarned that failure to 21 respond would result in the dismissal of the petition. (Id.) Over twenty days have passed 22 and Petitioner has not filed a response to the order. 23 I. DISCUSSION 24 Local Rule 110 provides that "[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with 25 these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of 26 any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court." District courts have the 27 inherent power to control their dockets and "in the exercise of that power, they may 28 impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case." Thompson v. 1 1 Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with 2 prejudice, based on a party's failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, 3 or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th 4 Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 5 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 6 amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) 7 (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court 8 apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 9 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 10 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local 11 rules). In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 12 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several 13 factors: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need 14 to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 15 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 16 alternatives. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Malone, 833 F.2d at 17 130; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24. 18 In the instant case, the Court finds that the public's interest in expeditiously 19 resolving this litigation and the Court's interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of 20 dismissal because it does not appear that Plaintiff has made a good faith effort to 21 prosecute this matter. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in 22 favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from any unreasonable delay 23 in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The 24 fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, is greatly 25 outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal. Finally, a court's warning to a party that 26 his failure to obey the court's order will result in dismissal satisfies the "consideration of 27 alternatives" requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; 28 Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. Here, the Court's order was clear that dismissal would 2 1 result from non-compliance with the order. (See ECF No. 5 ["Petitioner is forewarned 2 that failure to comply with a Court order will result in dismissal of the petition pursuant to 3 Local Rule 110.") 4 II. RECOMMENDATION 5 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED 6 for Plaintiff's failure to comply with a court order. Further, the Court ORDERS the Clerk 7 of Court to assign a District Court Judge to the present matter. 8 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States 9 District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 of the United States Code 10 section 636 (b)(1)(B). Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party 11 may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 12 document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and 13 Recommendation." The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 14 Title 28 of the United States Code section 636(b)(1)(C). Finally, Plaintiff is advised that 15 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 16 District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 30, 2014 /s/ Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.