Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01811/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01811-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROY L. SHIVERS, III, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

ON HABEAS CORPUS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

1:06-cv-01811-OWW-DLB-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 5) 

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

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

On January 23, 2007, the court dismissed the petition for writ

of habeas corpus, and granted Petitioner thirty (30) days within

which to file an amended petition in compliance therewith. 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

Case 1:06-cv-01811-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 04/18/07 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

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 th

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 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 January 23, 2007, expressly stated: “Petitioner is advised

that failure to file a first amended petition in compliance with

this order within the allotted time will result in a recommendation

that the petition be dismissed and the action be terminated.” 

Thus, Petitioner had adequate warning that dismissal of the

petition and termination of the action would result from

noncompliance with the court’s order.

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for

writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED and this action be TERMINATED

for Petitioner's failure to comply with the court’s order of

January 23, 2007. This Findings and Recommendations are submitted

to the United States District Judge assigned to the case pursuant

Case 1:06-cv-01811-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 04/18/07 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

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: April 17, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

23ehd0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01811-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 04/18/07 Page 3 of 3