Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00294/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00294-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD FELLOWS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

WARDEN J. D. HARTLEY, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:09-cv-00294-LJO-JLT HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS PETITION FOR PETITIONER’S

FAILURE TO OBEY THE COURT’S ORDER

ORDER DIRECTING THAT OBJECTIONS BE

FILED WITHIN TWENTY DAYS 

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for

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

The instant petition was filed on February 17, 2009. (Doc. 1). Petitioner submitted

documents along with his petition. The documents were lodged, rather than filed, by the Clerk of

the Court according to the Clerk’s routine practice to lodge transcripts. (Doc. 2). On July 14,

2009, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the petition itself

does not identify which parole hearing Petitioner is challenging. (Doc. 12). On January 7, 2010,

the Court issued Findings and Recommendations to deny the motion to dismiss. (Doc. 10). 

Respondent filed objections arguing that the petition should be dismissed because it contained no

“express allegation by Fellows that identified the date of parole consideration hearing that he was

challenging.” (Doc. 16, p. 3). Respondent also argued that, if the Court denied the motion to

1

Case 1:09-cv-00294-LJO-JLT Document 19 Filed 04/02/10 Page 1 of 4
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

dismiss, that the Court nevertheless should order Petitioner to file an amended petition that

specifically identifies the date of the hearing he is challenging in his petition. (Id.). On January

28, 2010, the District Court adopted the Findings and Recommendations denying Respondent’s

motion to dismiss. Shortly thereafter, on January 29, 2010, the Court issued an order requiring

Petitioner to file an amended petition within thirty days that specifically identified the date of the

parole hearing that he is challenging. The order specifically stated that Petitioner’s “failure to

comply with this order may result in a Recommendation that the Petition be dismissed pursuant

to Local Rule 110.” To date, Petitioner has not responded to the Court’s order. 

DISCUSSION

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 expeditiously resolving th

this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. This

case has been pending since February 17, 2009 and more than a month has passed since the

expiration of the March 3, 2010 deadline for Petitioner to file the amended petition required by

the Court’s January 29, 2010 order. To date, Petitioner has not filed an amended petition, has not

2

Case 1:09-cv-00294-LJO-JLT Document 19 Filed 04/02/10 Page 2 of 4
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

requested an extension of time to file an amended petition and has not communicated with the

Court in any fashion to explain his lack of compliance with the Court’s January 29, 2010 order. 

The Court cannot hold this case in abeyance indefinitely while 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 -- the public th

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

of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, given Petitioner’s noncompliance with the Court’s order,

no lesser sanction is feasible.

Proving Petitioner time, from January 29, 2010 through March 3, 2010 and through the

filing of this Findings and Recommendation, in which to file his amended petition “constituted

an attempt at a less drastic sanction to that of outright dismissal.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at

1262. Furthermore, the Court’s warning to Petitioner that his failure to obey the court’s order

will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Id.; Malone, 833

at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s January 29, 2010 order expressly stated as

follows: “Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order may result in a

Recommendation that the Petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 110.” (Doc. 18, p. 3). 

Thus, Petitioner had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with

the Court’s order. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas

corpus (Doc. 1), be dismissed for Petitioner's failure to prosecute. 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 twenty (20)

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

3

Case 1:09-cv-00294-LJO-JLT Document 19 Filed 04/02/10 Page 3 of 4
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

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: April 2, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

4

Case 1:09-cv-00294-LJO-JLT Document 19 Filed 04/02/10 Page 4 of 4