Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01347/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01347-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOAQUIN VELETA, 

Petitioner, 

v.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Respondents. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

1:05-cv-01347-OWW-TAG HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING THAT OBJECTIONS

BE FILED WITHIN TWENTY DAYS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 21, 2005, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ

of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California,

Sacramento Division. (Doc. 1). On October 26, 2005, the case was transferred to the Fresno

Division of this Court. (Doc. 3). 

On April 9, 2007, the Court, after preliminarily screening the petition, ordered Petitioner

to file an amended petition addressing the Court’s concerns that Grounds two, four, five, and six

were not exhausted because Petitioner never filed a habeas petition in the California Supreme

Court raising these claims, and because it appeared to the Court that the petition was untimely

under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) by approximately sixteen months. (Doc. 11). The Court indicated

that it required more information from Petitioner regarding Petitioner’s efforts to exhaust his

claims in state court and also the dates on which state habeas petitions may have been pending

for certain claims, which potentially may entitle Petitioner to statutory tolling of the one-year

///

Case 1:05-cv-01347-OWW -TAG Document 12 Filed 10/25/07 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

statute of limitations contained in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

(“AEDPA”). To date, Petitioner has not complied with the Court’s April 9, 2007 order. 

DISCUSSION

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 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 October 21, 2005. 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, Inc., 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 (9th Cir.

1992); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 132-133 ((th Cir. 1987); Henderson, 779

F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order of April 9, 2007, expressly stated: “Petitioner’s failure to file an

amended petition in a timely fashion will result in a recommendation that the petition be

dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to state a federal claim.” (Doc. 11). Thus, Petitioner had

adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order. 

Moreover, along with the order to amend, the Clerk of the Court served Petitioner with a blank

petition form and instructions for filling out the form. Petitioner has thus been given every

opportunity to correct the defects in his petition that the Court found during the preliminary

screening process.

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-01347-OWW -TAG Document 12 Filed 10/25/07 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

RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for

Petitioner’s failure to prosecute. These Findings and Recommendations are 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 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 District Judge 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 Judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-01347-OWW -TAG Document 12 Filed 10/25/07 Page 3 of 3