Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00375/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00375-2/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On March 23, 2016, the Court ordered Petitioner to file an amended petition within thirty days 

explaining his efforts to exhaust his claims and withdrawing those claims that challenged only 

conditions of confinement. (Doc. 4). On May 20, 2016, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause 

why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to obey the Court’s orders. (Doc. 5). That order 

gave Petitioner thirty days within which to respond or face a recommendation that the petition be 

dismissed. More than thirty days has elapsed, yet Petitioner has not responded to the May 20, 2016 

Order to Show Cause. Indeed, it appears that Petitioner refused service of the Order to Show Cause as 

one of the docket entries indicates that the order was returned as “undeliverable, inmate refused.” 

I. DISCUSSION

A. Exhaustion of Remedies.

A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his conviction by a petition 

for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The 

MELVIN DUKES,

 Petitioner,

v.

D. DAVEY, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00375-JLT

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS PETITION FOR FAILURE TO OBEY 

THE COURT’S ORDERS 

ORDER DIRECTING THAT OBJECTIONS BE 

FILED WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS

Case 1:16-cv-00375-LJO-JLT Document 7 Filed 06/22/16 Page 1 of 4
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

exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial 

opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 

722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9th

Cir. 1988). 

A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a 

full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. Duncan v. 

Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 

F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). In this instance, the highest state court would be the California Supreme 

Court. A federal court will find that the highest state court was given a full and fair opportunity to 

hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest state court with the claim's factual and legal 

basis. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365 (legal basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 

1719 (1992) (factual basis). 

Additionally, the petitioner must have specifically told the state court that he was raising a 

federal constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66; Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 669 (9th 

Cir.2000), amended, 247 F.3d 904 (2001); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir.1999); 

Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir.1998). 

Although Petitioner has alleged that he has presented some of the claims in the instant petition 

to, variously, the Kings County Superior Court and the Monterrey County Superior Court, he does not 

allege anywhere that he has presented these issues to the California Supreme Court. Thus, the petition 

appears to be entirely unexhausted. Petitioner has been afforded two opportunities to provide the 

Court with evidence that he has exhausted any of his claims, but he has failed to respond. 

Accordingly, the Court can conclude that none of the claims are exhausted. As mentioned previously, 

the Court cannot entertain a petition that is entirely unexhausted. Where none of a petitioner’s claims 

has been presented to the highest state court as required by the exhaustion doctrine, the Court must 

dismiss the petition. Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006); Jiminez v. Rice, 276 

F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 2001). 

B. Failure to Obey the Court’s Orders

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or 

Case 1:16-cv-00375-LJO-JLT Document 7 Filed 06/22/16 Page 2 of 4
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

with any order of the Court may be grounds for 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, 

1260-1261 (9th Cir. 1992)(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 

complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-1441 (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 lack of prosecution and 

failure to comply with local rules). 

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, 

779 F.2d at 1423; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-1261; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; 

Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-1424. 

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 March 17, 2016. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Respondent, 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 failure to obey the 

court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 

963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order to show 

Case 1:16-cv-00375-LJO-JLT Document 7 Filed 06/22/16 Page 3 of 4
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

cause dated May 20, 2016, expressly stated: “Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with 

this order may result in a Recommendation that the Petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 110.” 

(Doc. 5, p. 2). Thus, Petitioner had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his 

noncompliance with the Court’s order.

ORDER

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to assign a United States District Judge to 

this case.

RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the instant petition for writ of 

habeas corpus (Doc. 1), be DISMISSED for failure to obey the Court’s orders and lack of exhaustion.

This Findings 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 304 of the Local 

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 21 days

after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, 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 10 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 Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:16-cv-00375-LJO-JLT Document 7 Filed 06/22/16 Page 4 of 4