Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01781/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01781-2/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

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

WAYMON MCCOMBS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

UNNAMED, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:09-CV-01781 SMS HC

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT

JUDGE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO

FOLLOW COURT ORDERS

[Docs. #3, 5, 6]

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254.

On October 1, 2009, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. On October 9,

2009, the Court issued preliminary documents to Petitioner including an order directing Petitioner to

complete and file a form indicating consent or decline to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The time for filing the form passed, and Petitioner failed to comply.

Therefore, on November 23, 2009, the Court issued a second order directing Petitioner to complete

and return a consent/decline form. The time again passed with no reply from Petitioner.

Consequently, on January 11, 2010, the Court issued an order directing Petitioner to show cause why

the petition should not be dismissed for his failure to obey a court order. The time to comply again

passed with no response from Petitioner.

DISCUSSION

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

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 1

Case 1:09-cv-01781-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 02/18/10 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

or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions

authorized by statute or Rule or 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); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988)

(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprized 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, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, 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 defendants; (4) the public

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

alternatives. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; 

Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24.

In the instant case, 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 because this

case has been pending in this Court since October 1, 2009. The third factor, risk of prejudice to

defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from any

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. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his 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

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 2

Case 1:09-cv-01781-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 02/18/10 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

Court’s order to show cause was clear that dismissal would result from non-compliance with the

Court's order.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a

District Judge to this case.

RECOMMENDATION

The Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for Petitioner's failure

to comply with a court order. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned District Judge 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 thirty (30) days after service of

the 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 fourteen

(14) days 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: February 18, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 3

Case 1:09-cv-01781-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 02/18/10 Page 3 of 3