Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01002/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01002-1/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 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHERARD WAYNE HENDERSON, 1:06-cv-01002-OWW-TAG-HC

Petitioner,

vs. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT 

 OF HABEAS CORPUS 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (Doc. 1) 

Respondent.

 /

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

On September 19, 2006, the court issued an order requiring petitioner to submit an

application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $5.00 filing fee for this action, within thirty days

from the date of service of that order. (Doc. 5). 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 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 (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 August 1,

2006. The third factor, risk of prejudice to respondent, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a

Case 1:06-cv-01002-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 11/08/06 Page 1 of 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 2

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 1258, 1262 (th Cir. 1992); Malone v. United States .S. Postal Service,

833 F.2d 128, 132-133; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The court’s order of September 19, 2006,

expressly stated: “Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action

be dismissed.” Thus, petitioner had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his

noncompliance with the court’s order.

Accordingly, the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge HEREBY RECOMMENDS

that this action be DISMISSED for petitioner's failure to prosecute. 

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District 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

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: November 7, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-01002-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 11/08/06 Page 2 of 2