Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00019/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00019-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUANARD ROBINSON, 

Petitioner,

 

vs.

MR. VAIL,

 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:06-CV-0019-AWI-TAG HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

TO DISMISS PETITION FOR FAILURE

TO OBEY A COURT ORDER (Doc. 1)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On December 22, 2005, the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus (the “Petition”)

was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. (Doc. 1).

By order dated January 5, 2006, this action was transferred from the Sacramento Division to the

Fresno Division of the Court. (Doc. 3). By order dated February 21, 2006, Petitioner was ordered

to submit, within thirty days of the date of service of the order, an application to proceed in forma

pauperis and a certified copy of the prison trust account statement or pay the $5.00 filing fee.

(Doc. 6). 

Over thirty days have passed, and Petitioner has not complied with the Court’s order

dated February 21, 2006. (Doc. 3). 

Case 1:06-cv-00019-AWI-TAG Document 7 Filed 05/04/06 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

2

DISCUSSION

Local Rule 11-110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

Local Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent

power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions

including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d

829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s

failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 

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

local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to

comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-

41 (9th Cir. 1988)(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to

keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir.

1987)(dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

1424 (9th Cir. 1986)(dismissal for failure to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local

rules).

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a

court order, or failure to comply with local rules, 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 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831;

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali,

46 F.3d at 53.

In the instant case, 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. The third

Case 1:06-cv-00019-AWI-TAG Document 7 Filed 05/04/06 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

3

factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, 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 his 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 to pay the filing fee or submit a new application to proceed in forma pauperis 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.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the Petition (Doc. 1), be

DISMISSED for Petitioner's failure to comply with a court order. 

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these findings and recommendation, Petitioner may file written

objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate

Judge's Findings and Recommendation." 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: May 2, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00019-AWI-TAG Document 7 Filed 05/04/06 Page 3 of 3