Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06588/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06588-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK ALLEN TRAVALINI, ) 

 )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:04-cv-06588-OWW-TAG HC

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY 

WITH COURT ORDER

(Doc. 1)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner filed the instant petition on November 22, 2004, with the

Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division. 

(Doc. 1) 

On February 23, 2005, the Court issued an order directing Petitioner to file an amended

petition within thirty days naming the proper respondent and clarifying the extent to which state

court remedies had been exhausted. (Doc. 5). More than thirty days have elapsed from the date the

Court’s order was served on Petitioner, and Petitioner has failed to file an amended petition. 

Accordingly, Petitioner has not complied with the Court’s order dated February 23, 2005. 

Local Rule 11-110 provides that “Failure 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 sanctions 

. . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their

Case 1:04-cv-06588-OWW -JMD Document 6 Filed 05/06/05 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

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. United States 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

case and the Court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of dismissal, as this case has been

pending for almost three months. Further, the Court cannot proceed on the petition because the

petition fails to name a proper respondent and fails to provide sufficient information for the Court to

conduct its preliminary review regarding exhaustion of state court remedies. The third factor, risk of

prejudice to respondents, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises

from the occurrence of an 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, a court’s warning to

a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of

alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at

1424. 

///

Case 1:04-cv-06588-OWW -JMD Document 6 Filed 05/06/05 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

The Court’s order requiring Petitioner to file an amended petition expressly stated that

Petitioner’s failure to comply with the order might result in a recommendation that the action be

dismissed. (Doc. 5, p. 6). Thus, Petitioner had adequate warning that dismissal would result from

his noncompliance with the Court’s order. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED due to

Petitioner’s failure to comply with a Court order. 

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule

72-304. 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 Report and Recommendation.” 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: May 6, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06588-OWW -JMD Document 6 Filed 05/06/05 Page 3 of 3