Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01277/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01277-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OSCAR M. CONSTANCIO,

Petitioner,

v.

SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT,

Respondent.

No. 2:22-CV-1277-KJM-DMC-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 3, 2022, the Court dismissed Petitioner’s petition 

and directed Petitioner to file an amended petition within 30 days. Petitioner was warned that 

failure to file an amended petition may result in dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution 

and failure to comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 110. To date, Petitioner has 

not complied.

The Court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of 

dismissal. See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v.

U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's 

interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its own docket; (3) 

the risk of prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran,

Case 2:22-cv-01277-DJC-DMC Document 12 Filed 12/05/22 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

46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an 

appropriate sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. 

See Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is

appropriate where there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

1423 (9th Cir. 1986). Dismissal has also been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to 

comply with an order to file an amended complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992).

Having considered these factors, and in light of Petitioner’s failure to file an 

amended petition as directed, the Court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be 

dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and 

orders.

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 14 days 

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

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 

See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: December 5, 2022

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-01277-DJC-DMC Document 12 Filed 12/05/22 Page 2 of 2