Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00716/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00716-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Muharem Kurbegovich
Petitioner
Unknown
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MUHAREM KURBEGOVICH,

Petitioner,

v.

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00716-SAB-HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO CLOSE CASE

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

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

U.S.C. § 2254. On April 23, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

On June 19, 2015, following a preliminary review of the petition, the undersigned issued an 

order dismissing the petition. (ECF No. 9). Petitioner was granted thirty (30) days to file an

amended petition. Over thirty (30) days have passed, and Petitioner has not filed an amended 

petition. 

I.

DISCUSSION

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

Rules 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 

Case 1:15-cv-00716-SAB Document 10 Filed 08/07/15 Page 1 of 4
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

courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “in 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 apprised 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 April 23, 2015. The Court cannot hold this case in 

abeyance indefinitely while awaiting compliance by Petitioner. 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 

outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal. Finally, as the Court’s order had informed 

Petitioner that failure to comply with the order would result in dismissal of the petition, the Court 

finds that there are no feasible less drastic alternatives. Therefore, dismissal is appropriate.

Case 1:15-cv-00716-SAB Document 10 Filed 08/07/15 Page 2 of 4
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

II.

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 

district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining 

whether to issue a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 

2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to 

review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in which 

the proceeding is held.

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a 

proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another 

district or place for commitment or trial a person charged with a 

criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of 

such person’s detention pending removal proceedings.

(c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of 

appeals from–

(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which 

the detention complained of arises out of process issued by 

a State court; or

(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) 

only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right.

(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall 

indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing 

required by paragraph (2).

If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of 

appealability “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his 

constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve 

encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must 

demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on 

Case 1:15-cv-00716-SAB Document 10 Filed 08/07/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338.

In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 

determination that Petitioner’s federal habeas corpus petition should be dismissed debatable, 

wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue

a certificate of appealability.

III.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED;

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this action; and 

3. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00716-SAB Document 10 Filed 08/07/15 Page 4 of 4