Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01159/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01159-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN STACEY POMBO,

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 1:16-cv-01159-JLT (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DISMISS THE PETITION FOR 

FAILURE TO COMPLY

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

[TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE]

Petitioner has failed to file an amended petition after the Court dismissed his initial 

petition and directed him to file an amended petition. Therefore, the Court will recommend that 

the action be DISMISSED for failure to comply.

I. Procedural History

On August 8, 2016, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in this Court. After conducting a 

preliminary review of the petition, the Court found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate 

exhaustion of his state remedies and failed to sign the petition under penalty of perjury. On 

August 11, 2016, the Court issued an order requiring Petitioner to amend his petition within thirty 

days of the date of service of the order. (Doc. No. 5.) More than thirty days have passed, and 

Petitioner has failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s order.

II. Dismissal for Failure to Comply with Court Order

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 

Case 1:16-cv-01159-AWI-JLT Document 6 Filed 09/19/16 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

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. 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, 1260-1261 (9th Cir. 1992)(dismissal for failure to comply with an order 

requiring amendment of complaint).

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. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-1261. 

Here, 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, as this case has been 

pending since August 8, 2016. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Respondent, 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. 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, 963 F.2d at 1262. The Court’s order dated August 11, 2016, expressly 

stated: “Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this Order may result in an Order of 

Dismissal or a Recommendation that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 110.” 

(Doc. No. 5, p. 3). Thus, Petitioner had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his 

noncompliance with the Court’s order.

///

Case 1:16-cv-01159-AWI-JLT Document 6 Filed 09/19/16 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

ORDER

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to assign a United States District Judge 

to this case.

RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the instant petition for writ of 

habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1), be DISMISSED for failure to obey the Court’s order.

This Findings 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 304 of the 

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within 21 days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, 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.” Replies 

to the Objections shall be served and filed within 10 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 Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 

951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 19, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01159-AWI-JLT Document 6 Filed 09/19/16 Page 3 of 3