Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00543/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00543-7/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMIRO NORIEGA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

U. S. BUREAU OF PRISONS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 05-0543 AWI WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

DISMISSAL OF PETITION

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On March 24, 2006, the court entered an order directing Petitioner to complete the

form for filing a Section 2241 habeas corpus petition and to file it with this court within

thirty days. Petitioner has not filed the form or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

Local Rule 11-110 provides that “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

Case 1:05-cv-00543-AWI-WMW Document 19 Filed 07/24/06 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

inherent power to control their dockets and “in 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); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to

comply with local rule requiring pro se petitioners to keep court apprised of address); Malone

v. U.S. 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

failure to 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. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831;

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61;

Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 

In the instant case, 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, as

this case has been pending since April 22, 2005. The third factor, risk of prejudice to

respondent, 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. 

Case 1:05-cv-00543-AWI-WMW Document 19 Filed 07/24/06 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

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed

based on petitioner's failure to obey the court’s order of March 26, 2006.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, petitioner may

file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is 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: July 24, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00543-AWI-WMW Document 19 Filed 07/24/06 Page 3 of 3