Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00941/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00941-2/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

RAMIRO M. GARZA, 1:06-cv-00941-AWI-TAG-HC

Petitioner,

vs. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 TO DISMISS PETITION 

ON HABEAS CORPUS, 

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.

On October 3, 2006, the court issued an order requiring petitioner to submit a new

application to proceed in forma pauperis and a certified copy of his prison trust account statement 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 438 (1st 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

July 19, 2006. The third factor, risk of prejudice to the respondents, also weighs in favor of

Case 1:06-cv-00941-AWI-TAG Document 7 Filed 11/21/06 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

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 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Malone v. U.S.Postal Service, 833 F.2d

128, 132-33 (9th Cir. 1987); Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The court’s order of October 3, 2006,

expressly stated: “Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action

be dismissed.” (Doc. 6, p.2). Thus, petitioner had adequate warning that dismissal would result

from his noncompliance with the court’s order.

RECOMMENDATION

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 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 twenty 

(20) 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

Judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00941-AWI-TAG Document 7 Filed 11/21/06 Page 2 of 2