Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00652/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00652-3/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

DANIEL A. GOMEZ, 1:05-CV-00652-OWW-TAG-HC

Petitioner,

vs. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT 

 OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1)

THE PEOPLE, 

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.

DISCUSSION

On May 4, 2005, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition. (Doc. 1). On May 24,

2005, the Court issued an order requiring Petitioner to pay the $5.00 filing fee for this action, or

submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis, within thirty days from the date of service of that

order. (Doc. 7). 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

Case 1:05-cv-00652-LJO -TAG Document 11 Filed 07/05/05 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

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

since May 4, 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. 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 May 24, 2005, expressly stated: “Failure to comply with this order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed.” (Doc. 7). Thus, Petitioner had adequate warning

that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of

habeas corpus (Doc. 1), 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

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 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 

///

Case 1:05-cv-00652-LJO -TAG Document 11 Filed 07/05/05 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

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 1, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00652-LJO -TAG Document 11 Filed 07/05/05 Page 3 of 3