Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00227/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00227-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WARREN THEODORE TRENHAILE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

R. D. ANDREWS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 05-0227 WMW REC HC 

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

DISMISSAL OF PETITION 

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition is not filed on the form required by this

court. Accordingly, on March 17, 2006, the court entered an order directing the Clerk of the

Court to mail Petitioner a copy of the form for a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court further ordered Petitioner to complete this form, labeling it

as his first amended petition, and to file the completed form with the court within thirty days. 

Petitioner has not the first amended petition as required by the court, nor has he

Case 1:05-cv-00227-LJO-WMW Document 7 Filed 11/30/06 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

otherwise responded to the court’s order.

Local Rule 11-110 provides that a “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with

these Local Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the 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 Ain 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); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)(dismissal for

failure to comply with court 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 court finds that the public’s interest in

th

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 February 17, 2005. The court

cannot hold this case in abeyance indefinitely awaiting compliance by Petitioner. 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 (9 Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public

th

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in

Case 1:05-cv-00227-LJO-WMW Document 7 Filed 11/30/06 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

favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, Petitioner’s failure to respond to the court’s

order eliminates the possibility of alternatives.

RECOMMENDATION

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

Petitioner's failure to prosecute. 

These Findings and Recommendations 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) 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: November 30, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00227-LJO-WMW Document 7 Filed 11/30/06 Page 3 of 3