Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05700/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05700-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNIE A. SEDILLO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

CALIFORNIA, )

)

Respondent. )

)

1:04-cv-05700-AWI-DLB-HC

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY

WITH COURT ORDER

(Doc. 16) 

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

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

On March 7, 2005, the court issued an order granting

Petitioner leave to file an amended petition deleting the

unexhausted claims, within thirty (30) days from the date of

service of that order. The thirty-day period has passed, and

Petitioner has failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the

court’s order.

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

Case 1:04-cv-05700-AWI-DLB Document 17 Filed 04/29/05 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

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. 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, 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 March 7, 2005 expressly stated: “Petitioner is FOREWARNED

that failure to file an amended petition deleting the unexhausted

claims will result in the dismissal of this action.” Thus,

Petitioner had adequate warning that dismissal would result from

his noncompliance with the court’s order.

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

Case 1:04-cv-05700-AWI-DLB Document 17 Filed 04/29/05 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

the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within twenty (20) 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: April 28, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05700-AWI-DLB Document 17 Filed 04/29/05 Page 3 of 3