Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02252/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02252-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONATAN MALDONADO-SALGADO,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN,

Respondent.

Case No. 2:23-cv-2252-JDP (P)

ORDER

THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO 

RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 

TO THIS MATTER

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT THIS MATTER BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND TO 

COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 

DAYS

On July 8, 2024, respondent filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 9. Petitioner failed to 

timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion. Therefore, on September 

18, 2024, I ordered petitioner to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for his 

failure to prosecute. ECF No. 10. In the order, I notified petitioner that his failure to respond to 

the order would constitute a failure to comply with a court order and would result in dismissal of 

this case. Petitioner has not responded to the order to show cause, and the time to do so has 

passed. Accordingly, dismissal of the action is warranted.

The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that 

power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 

Case 2:23-cv-02252-DC-JDP Document 11 Filed 10/31/24 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to 

comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the 

Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”). 

A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to 

obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 

(9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order to file an amended 

complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to 

comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. 

U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court 

order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of 

prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 

In recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to 

comply with court orders, I have considered “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 

litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) 

the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 

drastic alternatives.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (citation omitted). 

Here, petitioner has failed to respond to respondent’s motion and a court order directing 

him to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to respondent’s motion. See ECF Nos. 9

& 10. Therefore, the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s need to 

manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice to the respondent all support imposition of the 

sanction of dismissal. Lastly, my warning to petitioner that failure to obey court orders will result 

in dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 

1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. Specifically, the September 18 order 

expressly warned petitioner that his failure to comply with court orders would result in dismissal. 

ECF No. 10. Petitioner had adequate warning that dismissal could result from his 

noncompliance. Accordingly, I find that the balance of factors weighs in favor of dismissal.

Case 2:23-cv-02252-DC-JDP Document 11 Filed 10/31/24 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a district 

judge to this matter. 

Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to 

comply with court orders for the reasons set forth in the September 10, 2024 order.

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 9, be denied as moot. 

3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 

service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 

court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 

within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-02252-DC-JDP Document 11 Filed 10/31/24 Page 3 of 3