Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01334/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01334-1/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

 In fact, on February 7, 2006, the order was returned to the Court indicating 1

that it was “undeliverable.” (Court Doc. 8.) Pursuant to Local Rule 83-182(f) each

party is under a continuing duty to inform the Court of any change of address.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE PEYTON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

JEANICE WOODWORD, )

)

Respondent. )

)

1:05-cv-01334-REC-DLB-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 7)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

By order filed January 25, 2006, the court found that the

petition failed to state any claims for relief against the named

Respondent. The court dismissed the petition and ordered

Petitioner to file an amended petition within thirty (30) days from

the date of service of that order. More than thirty days have

passed and Petitioner has not filed an amended petition or

otherwise responded to the court's order.1

Case 1:05-cv-01334-LJO-DLB Document 9 Filed 03/14/06 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

27

28

Absent such notice, service of documents at the prior address of record of the party

is effective service. Local Rule 83-182(f). 

2

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

Respondent; (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 (9 Cir. 1988). The court th

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 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 v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262;

Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The court’s

order of January 25, 2006, requiring Petitioner to file an amended

petition expressly stated: “Failure to comply with this order will

result in a recommendation that the instant petition be dismissed

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and

for failure to comply with a court order.” Thus, Petitioner had

Case 1:05-cv-01334-LJO-DLB Document 9 Filed 03/14/06 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

27

28

3

adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance

with the court’s order. 

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the instant

petition be DISMISSED for Petitioner's failure to comply with the

court’s order of January 25, 2006, and for the reasons set forth

therein, namely, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted.

These Findings and Recommendations are 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 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

Recommendations.” 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: March 10, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01334-LJO-DLB Document 9 Filed 03/14/06 Page 3 of 3