Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02639/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02639-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,

ANTHONY DENARD,

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-02-2639 LKK KJM P 

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES,

 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a second amended application

for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On October 16, 2003, based on respondent’s motion to dismiss, the court

dismissed petitioner’s first amended application for writ of habeas corpus for failure to exhaust

state court remedies with respect to all of his claims. In that October 2003 order, petitioner was

given leave to file a second amended habeas petition and informed that any such petition could

contain only claims for which state court remedies had been exhausted. Petitioner was warned

that failure to adhere to the court’s October 16, 2003 order would result in this action being

dismissed. 

/////

/////

Case 2:02-cv-02639-LKK -KJM Document 29 Filed 03/09/06 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

2

Petitioner filed a second amended application for writ of habeas corpus on

November 13, 2003. Petitioner again failed to exhaust state court remedies with respect to all of

his claims.

On January 11, 2006, the court ordered petitioner to show cause why, among other

things, this action should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for

petitioner’s failure to adhere to court orders. Petitioner has not responded to the court’s order.

Under Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992), the court must

consider five factors before dismissing a case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b): 

(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 respondent; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of

cases on their merits; (5) and the availability of less drastic alternatives.

Petitioner’s failure to follow court orders has thwarted the public interest in

expeditious litigation and has compromised the court’s ability to effectively manage its docket. 

There do not appear to be suitable alternatives to dismissal because it does not appear petitioner

is interested in litigating this case any longer. While there is nominal prejudice to respondent

should this case continue, and the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits

weighs in favor of not dismissing this action, consideration of the other three Ferdik factors and

their greater weight under the circumstances of this case demonstrates that dismissal is the

correct course of action.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action

be dismissed for petitioner’s failure to follow court orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

Case 2:02-cv-02639-LKK -KJM Document 29 Filed 03/09/06 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

3

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within five days after service of the objections. 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).

DATED: March 8, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

dena2639.41(b)

Case 2:02-cv-02639-LKK -KJM Document 29 Filed 03/09/06 Page 3 of 3