Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01619/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01619-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC MARK WATKINS,

Petitioner,

v.

M. KNOWLES, Warden

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-1619 AWI DLB HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO OBEY

A COURT ORDER

[Doc. 4]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On December 14, 2006, the court issued an order requiring Petitioner to submit an

application to proceed in forma pauperis OR pay the $5.00 filing fee for this action], within thirty

(30) days from the date of service of that order. The thirty-day period has passed, and Petitioner

has failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the court’s 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 (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. The

Case 1:06-cv-01619-AWI-DLB Document 6 Filed 02/06/07 Page 1 of 2
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

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 greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of

dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s

order will result in dismissal satisfies the "consideration of alternatives" requirement. Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The court’s

order of December 14, 2006 expressly stated: "Failure to comply with this order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed." Thus, Petitioner had adequate warning that

dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the court’s order.

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

Petitioner's failure to prosecute. This Findings and Recommendations 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 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 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: February 6, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01619-AWI-DLB Document 6 Filed 02/06/07 Page 2 of 2