Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05134/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05134-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENNIE RAY BROWN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

CALIFORNIA, et al., )

)

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:04-cv-05134-AWI-TAG HC

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(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. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 21, 2004, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring Petitioner to respond

within thirty days to explain why the Petition should not be dismissed for mootness and lack of

exhaustion. (Doc. 10). At the time, Petitioner was not in custody, and hence the Court was

concerned about the mootness of a habeas corpus petition predicated upon unconstitutional

confinement. Since Petitioner is currently confined, mootness is no longer a concern to the Court.

However, the June 21, 2004, Order to Show Cause also required Petitioner to show cause

why the Petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust his state remedies. (Doc. 10). The

Court's Order to Show Cause then explained the shortcomings in the instant Petition as follows:

"It appears that Petitioner has not presented his ground for habeas corpus relief to

the state court, up to and including the California Supreme Court. If Petitioner has

not presented this claim for relief to the California Supreme Court, the Court must

Case 1:04-cv-05134-LJO-TAG Document 41 Filed 02/12/07 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

dismiss the petition. See Calderon v. United States Dist. Court, 107 F.3d 756, 760

(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc); Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1273 (9th Cir.

1997). It is possible, however, that Petitioner has presented his claim to the

California Supreme Court and simply neglected to inform this Court. Thus,

Petitioner must inform the Court if his claim has been presented to the California

Supreme Court and, if possible, provide the Court with a copy of the petition filed

in the California Supreme Court, along with a copy of any ruling made by the

California Supreme Court. Without knowing what claims have been presented to

the California Supreme Court, the Court is unable to proceed to the merits of the

petition."

(Doc. 10, pp. 2-4).

Thereafter, Petitioner requested, and received an extension of time of thirty days to respond

to the Order to Show Cause, based on the death of his mother. (Docs. 11, 12). Subsequently, on

December 6, 2004, when Petitioner had failed to respond within the extended time period, and after

more than sixty days had elapsed since Petitioner's mail had been returned to the Court without any

notification by Petitioner of any change of address, the Court issued a Report and Recommendation

to dismiss the petition based on Petitioner's failure to prosecute the case. (Doc. 14, p. 2). The

Report and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were

to be filed within thirty days from the date of service of that order. 

On January 31, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc.

24). Petitioner again filed objections on February 25, 2005. (Doc. 30). In his objections, Petitioner

asserts that his address of record had been his mother's residence, but that she had died. (Doc. 30, p.

6). Following his mother's death, Petitioner and his sister had a disagreement about the disposition

of their mother's home, resulting in difficulties for Petitioner in obtaining mail sent to his mother's

house in his name. (Id.). Additionally, on November 28, 2004, Petitioner was arrested in

Bakersfield and has remained in custody since that time. (Id. at p. 9). 

Based on Petitioner's representations, the Court found good cause for Petitioner's failure to

prosecute during the period referred to in the Report and Recommendation of December 6, 2004,

and, on April 25, 2005, withdrew the Report and Recommendation of December 6, 2004. (Doc. 31). 

On April 25, 2005, the Court once again issued an Order to Show Cause based on Petitioner's failure

to respond to the Order to Show Cause dated June 21, 2005, which raised substantive issues of mootness and exhaustion that would, if established, necessitate the dismissal of the petition. (Doc.31). 

Case 1:04-cv-05134-LJO-TAG Document 41 Filed 02/12/07 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

Once again, Petitioner requested an extension of time on May 20, 2005. (Doc. 32). On June

16, 2005, the Court granted in part Petitioner's request for a sixty-day extension by allowing

Petitioner an additional thirty days to respond. (Doc. 33). On September 8, 2005, Petitioner once

again filed a motion for a "continuance," which the Court construed as yet an additional request for

time. (Doc. 36). On October 25, 2005, the Court granted Petitioner thirty more days to respond. 

(Doc. 37). 

The Court received no further communication from Petitioner, and, to date, Petitioner has

never responded to the Court's Order to Show Cause of June 21, 2004.

DISCUSSION

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 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 November

19, 2003. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Respondents, 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, Inc., 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.

Posatl Service, 833 F.2d 128, 132-133 (9th Cir. 1987); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424

(9th Cir. 1986). The Court’s Order to Show Cause dated April 25, 2006 stated: “Failure to comply

with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.” (Doc. 31). Thus, 

Petitioner had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the

Case 1:04-cv-05134-LJO-TAG Document 41 Filed 02/12/07 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

Court’s order.

Here, Petitioner has been given numerous opportunities to provide the Court with reasons

why the instant Petitioner should not be dismissed. Yet despite being granted a series of extensions

of time in which to respond, and despite the Court's withholding of a recommendation of dismissal

for over one calendar year, Petitioner has yet to either cooperate with the Court in moving the

proceedings forward or to comply with the clear orders and directions of this Court regarding the

issues of mootness and exhaustion. In light of the foregoing, the Court has no alternative but to

recommend dismissal of this petition.

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 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 fifteen (15) 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 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:04-cv-05134-LJO-TAG Document 41 Filed 02/12/07 Page 4 of 4