Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00660/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00660-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aaron Thornton
Petitioner
Dennis Verzosa
Respondent

Document Text:

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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON THORNTON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

DENNIS VERZOSA, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:07-CV-00660 AWI NEW (DLB) HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO

FOLLOW A COURT ORDER

[Doc. #10]

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

§ 2254.

On March 26, 2007, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following a

preliminary review of the petition, on June 12, 2007, the undersigned issued an order dismissing the

petition for failure to state a discernable claim and failure to exhaust state remedies. Petitioner was

granted thirty (30) days to file an amended petition curing the defects. 

Over thirty (30) days have passed, and Petitioner has not complied with the court order.

DISCUSSION

Local Rule 11-110 provides that “a failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local

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

Case 1:07-cv-00660-AWI -GSA Document 12 Filed 08/22/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

sanctions . . . 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 March 26, 2007. 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

Court’s order to file an amended petition was clear that dismissal would result from non-compliance

Case 1:07-cv-00660-AWI -GSA Document 12 Filed 08/22/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

with the Court's order.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, 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 Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, United

States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 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 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: August 20, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00660-AWI -GSA Document 12 Filed 08/22/07 Page 3 of 3