Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00921/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00921-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELIGIO ORTIZ,

Petitioner,

v.

K. HOLLAND, Warden,

Respondent.

1:16-cv-00921 MJS HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 

FOLLOW COURT ORDER

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ASSIGN DISTRICT COURT JUDGE TO 

THE PRESENT MATTER

[Doc. 4]

I. Findings

Petitioner is California state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On June 27, 2016, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. On June 

30, 2016 the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be 

dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. (ECF No. 4.) Petitioner was provided 

thirty (30) days to respond and was provided notice that failure to comply could result in 

dismissal of the petition. Over thirty (30) days have passed, and Petitioner has not 

responded to the order to show cause.

Case 1:16-cv-00921-LJO-MJS Document 6 Filed 08/08/16 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

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, 1423-24 (9th Cir. 1986); 

Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). 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. 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 outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. 

Finally, given Petitioner’s failure to communicate with the Court despite an order

requiring him to do so, no lesser sanction is feasible. 

Petitioner has failed to prosecute the present matter by failing to follow a court 

order. Therefore, the petition must be dismissed. 

II. Recommendation

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED 

for Plaintiff's failure to comply with a court order. Further, the Court ORDERS the Clerk 

of Court to assign a District Court Judge to the present matter.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States 

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 of the United States Code 

section 636 (b)(1)(B). 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 

Recommendation." The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 

Title 28 of the United States Code section 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff is advised that failure to 

Case 1:16-cv-00921-LJO-MJS Document 6 Filed 08/08/16 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

file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's 

order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00921-LJO-MJS Document 6 Filed 08/08/16 Page 3 of 3