Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00514/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00514-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUGENE HAYDEN, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

M.E. SEARMAN, Warden,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00514 MJS (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 

FOLLOW COURT ORDER

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ASSIGN DISTRICT COURT JUDGE TO 

THE PRESENT MATTER

On April 11, 2014, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner 

did not sign the petition. On April 25, 2014, the Court ordered Petitioner to submit a 

signed declaration stating that he submitted the petition. (ECF No. 5.) Petitioner was 

provided twenty (20) days to respond to the order and was forewarned that failure to 

respond would result in the dismissal of the petition. (Id.) Over twenty days have passed 

and Petitioner has not filed a response to the order. 

I. DISCUSSION

Local Rule 110 provides that "[f]ailure 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." District courts have the 

inherent power to control their dockets and "in the exercise of that power, they may 

impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case." Thompson v. 

Case 1:14-cv-00514-MJS Document 8 Filed 06/02/14 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

Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with 

prejudice, based on a party's failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, 

or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., 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 requiring 

amendment of 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 Service, 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 determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 

a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several 

factors: (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. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Malone, 833 F.2d at 

130; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24.

In the instant case, the Court finds that the public's interest in expeditiously 

resolving this litigation and the Court's interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of 

dismissal because it does not appear that Plaintiff has made a good faith effort to

prosecute this matter. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in 

favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from any unreasonable delay 

in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The 

fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, is greatly 

outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal. Finally, a court's warning to a party that 

his failure to obey the court's order will result in dismissal satisfies the "consideration of 

alternatives" requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; 

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. Here, the Court's order was clear that dismissal would 

Case 1:14-cv-00514-MJS Document 8 Filed 06/02/14 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

result from non-compliance with the order. (See ECF No. 5 ["Petitioner is forewarned 

that failure to comply with a Court order will result in dismissal of the petition pursuant to 

Local Rule 110.")

II. RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED 

for Plaintiff's failure to comply with a court order. Further, the Court ORDERS the Clerk 

of Court to assign a District Court Judge to the present matter.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States 

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 of the United States Code 

section 636 (b)(1)(B). Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party 

may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 

document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and 

Recommendation." The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 

Title 28 of the United States Code section 636(b)(1)(C). Finally, Plaintiff is advised that 

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 

District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 30, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00514-MJS Document 8 Filed 06/02/14 Page 3 of 3