Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00386/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00386-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bernie Ellis
Respondent
Adolfo Ramirez
Petitioner

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADOLFO RAMIREZ, 1:06-CV-0386-OWW-TAG HC

Petitioner,

vs. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DISMISS PETITION (Doc. 1) 

BERNIE ELLIS, 

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 April 27, 2006, the Court issued an order requiring Petitioner to submit a certified

copy of his prison trust account statement for the entire six-month period immediately preceding the

filing of the petition 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; however, 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 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 (9 Cir. th

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 April 6, 2006. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Respondents, also weighs in favor of

dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in

Case 1:06-cv-00386-OWW -TAG Document 7 Filed 06/21/06 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

prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9 Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- th

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 at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s

order 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.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this petition for writ of

habeas corpus (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED for Petitioner's failure to prosecute. 

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court 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)©). 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: June 21, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00386-OWW -TAG Document 7 Filed 06/21/06 Page 2 of 2