Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00804/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00804-4/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

FREDERICK RAY BROWN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

A.P. KANE, WARDEN, )

)

Respondent. )

)

1:06-cv-00804-AWI-SMS-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

(Doc. 12)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

By order filed November 6, 2006, the court found that the

petition failed to state any claims for relief against the named

Respondent. The court dismissed the petition and ordered

Petitioner to file an amended petition within thirty (30) days from

the date of service of that order. On December 7, 2006, Petitioner

filed a motion to extend time. On December 20, 2006, the court

granted Petitioner an additional thirty (30) days within which to

comply. More than thirty days have passed and Petitioner has not

filed an amended petition or otherwise responded to the court's

order(s). 

Case 1:06-cv-00804-SMS Document 16 Filed 04/18/07 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

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of

prosecution, 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

Respondents; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

their merits; and, (5) the availability of less drastic

alternatives. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.

1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9 Cir. 1988). The court th

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. The third factor, risk of prejudice to

Respondents, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption

of injury arises from the occurrence of 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 discussed herein.

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be

DISMISSED for Petitioner's failure to prosecute. These Findings

and Recommendation are submitted to the United States District

Court Judge assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of

Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. 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 Recommendations.” 

Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10)

Case 1:06-cv-00804-SMS Document 16 Filed 04/18/07 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

court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are

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: April 17, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

23ehd0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00804-SMS Document 16 Filed 04/18/07 Page 3 of 3