Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01363/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01363-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

HERMAN B. SLATER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

DAVID SMITH, WARDEN, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

)

1:06-cv-01363-AWI-SMS-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

(Doc. 4)

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

On November 6, 2006, the court issued an order requiring

Petitioner to show cause why the instant petition should not be

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, 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

Case 1:06-cv-01363-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 01/04/07 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

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 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 November

6, 2006, requiring Petitioner to show cause expressly stated:

“Petitioner is advised that failure to comply with this order will

result in a recommendation that the instant petition be dismissed

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and

for failure to comply with a court order. Local Rule 11-110.” 

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 state a claim upon which

relief may be granted and for failure to comply with a court order.

Local Rule 11-110.

Case 1:06-cv-01363-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 01/04/07 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

These Findings and Recommendation are 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

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: January 3, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01363-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 01/04/07 Page 3 of 3