Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00917/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00917-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
INS
Respondent
Miae Yim
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

 The United States Postal Service returned the order on August 22, 2005 as undeliverable. A notation on the

envelope indicates that petitioner is "out of custody". However, petitioner has not notified the court of any change in his

address. Absent such notice, service at a party’s prior address is fully effective. Local Rule 83-182(f). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIAE YIM, 1:05-CV-0917-AWI-TAG HC

Petitioner,

vs. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT

INS, OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR FAILURE TO

OBEY A COURT ORDER

Respondent.. (Doc. 5, Attach.1) 

 /

Petitioner Miae Yim (“petitioner”) is proceeding pro se in a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On August 15, 2005, the court issued an order requiring

petitioner pay the $5.00 filing fee within 30 days of the date of service of the order. (Doc. 8). More

than 30 days have passed and petitioner has not complied with or otherwise responded to the court’s

order.1

Local Rule 11-110 provides that “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

sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District 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

Case 1:05-cv-00917-AWI-TAG Document 10 Filed 09/16/05 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

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 petitioners 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

failure to 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. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at

1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 

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, as this case was

filed in the Northern District on June 2, 2005 and was transferred and received in this court on July

15, 2005. (Doc. 5, Attach. 1). 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, 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 his 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 requiring petitioner to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis expressly stated:

“Failure to follow this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant

to Local Rule 11-110.” Thus, petitioner had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his

Case 1:05-cv-00917-AWI-TAG Document 10 Filed 09/16/05 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

noncompliance with the court’s order.

RECOMMENDATION 

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the instant petition (Doc. 5,

Attach. 1), be DISMISSED based on petitioner's failure to obey the court’s order of August 15, 2005.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned

to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after

being served with this Report and Recommendation, petitioner may file written objections with the

court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation.” Petitioner is 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: September 15, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00917-AWI-TAG Document 10 Filed 09/16/05 Page 3 of 3