Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01637/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01637-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL DEWAYNE ALLEN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON – SAC, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-1637 AC P 

ORDER 

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of the 

undersigned magistrate judge for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 

305(a). ECF No. 6. 

By order filed January 19, 2016, petitioner was ordered to show that he had exhausted his 

state court remedies or demonstrate that no state court remedies were available or that they were 

ineffective to protect his rights. ECF No. 10. He was warned that failure to comply with the 

order would result in dismissal of this action. Id. 

Petitioner did not respond to the order to show cause. However, another option became 

available to petitioner and by order filed February 23, 2016, the court notified petitioner that he 

could seek a stay pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), to preserve the filing date of 

his federal petition, even if the petition contains only unexhausted claims. ECF No. 11 (citing 

Case 2:15-cv-01637-AC Document 13 Filed 05/25/16 Page 1 of 4
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

Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2016)). Petitioner was advised that if he was unable to 

show that he had exhausted his state court remedies or that state court remedies were not 

available to him, he must notify the court whether he was seeking a stay under Rhines. Id. 

Petitioner was further advised of what he must show to warrant a Rhines stay and was given an 

additional thirty days to (1) show that he had exhausted his state court remedies; (2) show that 

there were not any state court remedies or that the remedies were ineffective; or (3) notify the 

court that he was seeking a stay and abeyance in order to exhaust his state court remedies. Id. He 

was again warned that failure to comply with the court’s order would result in dismissal of the 

petition. Id. 

After the thirty day period has passed and petitioner had not responded to the order, the 

court granted him one final opportunity to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed. 

ECF No. 12. Petitioner was given thirty days to respond, reminded of his options, and warned 

that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the petition. Id. The thirty day period has now 

passed and petitioner has not responded to the order in any way. 

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with 

any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions 

authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” “District courts have the 

inherent power to control their dockets. In the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions 

including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 

831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an 

action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) 

(court may dismiss action for failure to prosecute or comply with civil rules or a court order); 

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local 

rule) (citing United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979)); Malone v. United States 

Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130-33 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court 

order). 

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the court must 

consider several factors: 

Case 2:15-cv-01637-AC Document 13 Filed 05/25/16 Page 2 of 4
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

(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 

sanctions. 

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F. 2d 

493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984); Mir v. Fosburg, 706 F.2d 916, 918 (9th Cir. 1983)). 

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. This action has been pending 

since July 2015, and since the court’s January 19, 2016 order to show cause, petitioner has made 

no attempt to contact the court or otherwise comply with that order. The court cannot hold this 

case in abeyance awaiting such compliance by petitioner. 

The third factor, risk of prejudice to respondent, also weighs in favor of dismissal. The 

Ninth Circuit “has consistently held that the failure to prosecute diligently is sufficient by itself to 

justify a dismissal, even in the absence of a showing of actual prejudice to the [opposing party] 

from the failure.” Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976) (citing 

Alexander v. Pac. Mar. Ass’n, 434 F.2d 281 (9th Cir. 1970); Pearson v. Dennison, 353 F.2d 24 

(9th Cir. 1968)). This is because “[t]he law presumes injury from unreasonable delay.” Id. 

(citing States S.S. Co. v. Philippine Air Lines, 426 F.2d 803, 804 (9th Cir. 1970)). 

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, the court has already provided petitioner additional time to comply rather than 

dismiss the petition and warned him that failure to respond to the order to show cause would 

result in dismissal of the action. ECF Nos. 11, 12. The court’s warning to a party that failure to 

obey the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the “consideration of the alternatives” 

requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Malone, 833 at 132-133; 

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The court’s February 23, 2016 and April 12, 2016 orders giving 

petitioner additional opportunities to comply with the January 19, 2016 order to show cause each 

Case 2:15-cv-01637-AC Document 13 Filed 05/25/16 Page 3 of 4
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 

4

expressly stated that “[f]ailure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of the petition.” 

ECF No. 11 at 2; ECF No. 12 at 3. Thus, petitioner had adequate warning that dismissal could 

result from his noncompliance with the court’s orders. 

Summary 

 This case is being dismissed without prejudice because plaintiff has not responded to the 

court’s order to show cause in any way. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice 

for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 110. 

DATED: May 24, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-01637-AC Document 13 Filed 05/25/16 Page 4 of 4