Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06146/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06146-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABSALOM GREENE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JOHN ASHCROFT, et al., )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 04-6146 OWW WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE

TO COMPLY WITH COURT

ORDER

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On October 18, 2004, the court entered an order requiring Petitioner to either file an

application to proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the $5.00 filing fee by November 22,

2004. Petitioner did not respond to the court’s order and neither filed an application to

proceed in forma pauperis nor paid the filing fee.

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

Case 1:04-cv-06146-OWW -WMW Document 7 Filed 05/02/05 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

27

28 2

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 Ain 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); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)(dismissal for

failure to comply with court order). 

In the present case, Petitioner has failed to comply with the court’s order of October

18, 2004, requiring Petitioner to either file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or to

pay the $5.00 filing fee by November 22, 2004. Petitioner’s failure to comply with the

court’s order has made it impossible for this case to proceed. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be

dismissed without prejudice for Petitioner’s failure to comply with the court’s order of

October 18, 2004, and either file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the

$5.00 filing fee .

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 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 thirty (30) 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 Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by

Case 1:04-cv-06146-OWW -WMW Document 7 Filed 05/02/05 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

27

28 3

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: May 2, 2005 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06146-OWW -WMW Document 7 Filed 05/02/05 Page 3 of 3