Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01323/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01323-1/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS C. INFANTE-BARAJAS,

Petitioner,

v.

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01323 GSA HC

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241.

On August 21, 2013, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following a 

preliminary review of the petition, on November 20, 2013, the undersigned issued an order 

dismissing the petition for failure to state a discernable claim and failure to name a proper 

respondent. Petitioner was granted thirty (30) days to file an amended petition curing the 

defects. Over thirty (30) days have passed, and Petitioner has not complied with the court order. 

Notably, on December 3, 2013, the order served on Petitioner was returned by the U.S. Postal 

Service as undeliverable with a remark that the Petitioner was no longer at the institution.

DISCUSSION

Local Rule 110 provides that a “[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 

Case 1:13-cv-01323-LJO-GSA Document 7 Filed 01/07/14 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

sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or 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 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 

this case has been pending in this Court since August 21, 2013. 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, there are no less drastic

alternatives since Petitioner has failed to keep the Court apprised of his current address; thus, the 

Court has no way of communicating with Petitioner.

Case 1:13-cv-01323-LJO-GSA Document 7 Filed 01/07/14 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

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign 

a District Judge to the case.

RECOMMENDATION

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

Petitioner's failure to comply with a court order. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned District Court Judge, 

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 thirty (30) 

days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file written objections 

with the Court. 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 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Petitioner 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: January 6, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

Case 1:13-cv-01323-LJO-GSA Document 7 Filed 01/07/14 Page 3 of 3