Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00843/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00843-1/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

27

28

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL G. OLSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

MARIPOSA COUNTY SUPERIOR )

COURT, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

CV F 05 0843 REC LJO HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO

COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER

[Doc. #7]

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On June 28, 2005, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in this

Court. Petitioner complains that he has been wrongfully denied 92 days of credit for time spent in

custody prior to sentencing.

On August 8, 2005, the Court issued an order directing Petitioner to show cause why the

petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. 

DISCUSSION

I. Preliminary Review of Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review

Case 1:05-cv-00843-REC-LJO Document 8 Filed 09/28/05 Page 1 of 5
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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 2

of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears

from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing §

2254 Cases; Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990). Otherwise, the Court will order

Respondent to respond to the petition. Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.

II. Failure to Comply with a Court 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); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988)

(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprized 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

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. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; 

Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24.

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 because this

case has been pending in this Court since June 28, 2005. The third factor, risk of prejudice to

Case 1:05-cv-00843-REC-LJO Document 8 Filed 09/28/05 Page 2 of 5
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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 3

defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from any

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. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure

to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives”

requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The

Court’s order to show cause was clear that dismissal would result from non-compliance with the

Court's order.

III. Failure to Exhaust State Remedies

A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his conviction by a

petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The

exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial

opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501

U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158,

1163 (9th Cir. 1988). 

A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a

full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. Duncan v.

Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88

F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). A federal court will find that the highest state court was given a full

and fair opportunity to hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest state court with the

claim's factual and legal basis. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365 (legal basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504

U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 1719 (1992) (factual basis). 

Additionally, the petitioner must have specifically told the state court that he was raising a

federal constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66; Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 669

(9th Cir.2000), amended, 247 F.3d 904 (2001); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir.1999);

Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir.1998). In Duncan, the United States Supreme Court

reiterated the rule as follows: 

In Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 . . . (1971), we said that exhaustion 

Case 1:05-cv-00843-REC-LJO Document 8 Filed 09/28/05 Page 3 of 5
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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 4

of state remedies requires that petitioners "fairly presen[t]" federal claims to the 

state courts in order to give the State the "'opportunity to pass upon and correct 

alleged violations of the prisoners' federal rights" (some internal quotation marks

omitted). If state courts are to be given the opportunity to correct alleged violations 

of prisoners' federal rights, they must surely be alerted to the fact that the prisoners 

are asserting claims under the United States Constitution. If a habeas petitioner 

wishes to claim that an evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him the due 

process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so, not only 

in federal court, but in state court. 

Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-366. The Ninth Circuit examined the rule further, stating:

Our rule is that a state prisoner has not "fairly presented" (and thus 

exhausted) his federal claims in state court unless he specifically indicated to 

that court that those claims were based on federal law. See Shumway v. Payne, 

223 F.3d 982, 987-88 (9th Cir. 2000). Since the Supreme Court's decision in 

Duncan, this court has held that the petitioner must make the federal basis of the 

claim explicit either by citing federal law or the decisions of federal courts, even

if the federal basis is “self-evident," Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882, 889 

(9th Cir. 1999) (citing Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 7 . . . (1982), or the 

underlying claim would be decided under state law on the same considerations 

that would control resolution of the claim on federal grounds. Hiivala v. Wood, 

195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 

(9th Cir. 1996); . . . .

In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to 

the fact that the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the 

state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the 

violation of federal law is. 

Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added). 

Upon review of the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus, it appears that Petitioner has

not presented his grounds to the California Supreme Court. The Court’s order to show cause directed

Petitioner to notify and inform the Court whether Petitioner has presented his claims to the

California Supreme Court. Petitioner did not do so. Therefore, the Court must assume that Petitioner

has not exhausted his state remedies. The Court must dismiss a petition containing only unexhausted

claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for

Petitioner's failure to comply with a court order and failure to exhaust state remedies. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Robert E. Coyle, United

States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

Case 1:05-cv-00843-REC-LJO Document 8 Filed 09/28/05 Page 4 of 5
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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 5

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: September 27, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00843-REC-LJO Document 8 Filed 09/28/05 Page 5 of 5