Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01549/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01549-2/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

AARON THORNTON,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVID GOTTLIEB,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-cv-01549 AWI DLB (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF

PETITION FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY

WITH COURT ORDER; FAILURE TO NAME

PROPER RESPONDENT; FAILURE TO

STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR

RELIEF; AND FAILURE TO EXHAUST

STATE JUDICIAL REMEMDIES

[Doc. 5]

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 for writ of habeas corpus on October 19, 2007. On

November 14, 2007, the Court dismissed the petition with leave to amend. (Court Doc. 4.) 

Specifically, the Court found that Petitioner had failed to name a proper respondent, failed to

state a cognizable claim for relief under § 2254, and failed to indicate whether the state judicial

remedies were exhausted. (Id.) The Court send Petitioner a blank form petition pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. 

On November 26, 2007, Petitioner filed a response to the Court’s November 14, 2007. 

Petitioner’s response is completely deficient. Petitioner did not follow any of the Court’s

directives as outlined in the November 26, 2007, order. First, Petitioner failed to utilize the form

petition that was sent to him by this Court. Second, Petitioner failed to name a proper

Respondent, as he still names David Gottlieb as Respondent. Third, Petitioner fails to set forth

Case 1:07-cv-01549-AWI-DLB Document 6 Filed 01/04/08 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

his claims for relief. Finally, Petitioner fails to indicate whether the state judicial remedies have

been exhausted. Rather, Petitioner entitles his document “Findings and Recommendation

recommending Petitioner Motion To Suppress Evidence Respondent’s As Moot Be Granted.” 

(Court Doc. 5.) Petitioner’s document is incoherent and totally incomprehensible, as to any relief

he may be seeking by way of a § 2254 petition. Because it appears that Petitioner has made no

attempt to comply with the Court’s November 14, 2007, order, the instant petition should be

dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s order. 

Local Rule 11-110 provides that a “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

Local Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the 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 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, as this

case has been pending since October 19, 2007. The Court cannot hold this case in abeyance

indefinitely 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

Case 1:07-cv-01549-AWI-DLB Document 6 Filed 01/04/08 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

occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522,

524 (9 Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on their th

merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally,

given Petitioner’s utter noncompliance with the Court’s order, no lesser sanction is feasible. 

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action 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 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 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: January 3, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01549-AWI-DLB Document 6 Filed 01/04/08 Page 3 of 3