Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01546/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01546-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD LEONARD, 1:06-CV-1546 AWI DLB HC

Petitioner,

vs. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 

SCRIBNER, et al., 

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On

November 29, 2006, the court issued an order requiring Petitioner to submit an application to

proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $5.00 filing fee for this action, within thirty (30) days from the

date of service of that order. The thirty-day period has passed, and Petitioner has failed to comply

with or otherwise respond to the court’s order.

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 th

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. The third factor, risk of prejudice to

Respondents, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the

Case 1:06-cv-01546-LJO -DLB Document 9 Filed 02/27/07 Page 1 of 2
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

occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524

(9 Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is

th

greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning

to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of

alternatives” requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson,

779 F.2d at 1424. The court’s order of November 29, 2006, expressly stated: “Failure to comply

with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.” Thus, Petitioner had

adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the court’s order.

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for

Petitioner's failure to prosecute. This Report and Recommendation is 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 Report and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be

served and filed within ten (10) 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: February 26, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

23ehd0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01546-LJO -DLB Document 9 Filed 02/27/07 Page 2 of 2