Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01211/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01211-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANGEL MORALES HERNANDEZ, 1:06-cv-01211-AWI-TAG-HC

Petitioner, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE 

vs. TO PROSECUTE

 

M. S. EVANS, Warden, 

Respondent.

 /

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed on August 21, 2006 in the United States District Court for the

Norther District of California (Doc. 1-2) and transferred to the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of California on August 28, 2006. (Doc. 1-4). 

On November 21, 2006, the court issued a second order requiring petitioner to submit a

certified copy of his prison trust account statement for the entire six-month period immediately

preceding the filing of the petition OR pay the $5.00 filing fee for this action, within thirty (30) days

from the date of service of that order. (Doc. 6). 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 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 (9th Cir. 1988).

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

Case 1:06-cv-01211-AWI-TAG Document 7 Filed 01/10/07 Page 1 of 2
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

since August 21, 2006. (Doc. 1-2). The third factor, risk of prejudice to the 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, Inc., 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 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Malone v.

United States Postal Service, 833 F. 2d 128, 132-33 (9th Cir. 1987); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d

at 1424. The court’s order of November 21, 2006, expressly stated: “Failure to comply with this

order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.” 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 prosecute.

This Report 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

fifteen (15) 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 Report 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 9, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-01211-AWI-TAG Document 7 Filed 01/10/07 Page 2 of 2