Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01455/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01455-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Derral G. Adams
Respondent
Thomas Shadden
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS SHADDEN,

Petitioner,

v.

DERRAL G. ADAMS,

Respondent.

___________________________________/

1:12-CV-01455 GSA HC

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO

FOLLOW COURT ORDERS

[Docs. #8,10]

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

§ 2254.

On April 10, 2012, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals. On September 5, 2012, the Ninth Circuit transferred the petition to this Court. 

On September 11, 2012, the Court issued new case documents, and ordered Petitioner to complete

and file a form indicating consent or decline to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. Petitioner

was granted thirty (30) days to file the completed form. Over thirty (30) days passed, and Petitioner

failed to comply. On October 29, 2012, the Court issued the order a second time and provided

Petitioner with another thirty (30) days to comply. Again, thirty (30) days passed with no response

from Petitioner. 

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 1

Case 1:12-cv-01455-GSA Document 14 Filed 01/07/13 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

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 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 September 5, 2012. 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. 

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 2

Case 1:12-cv-01455-GSA Document 14 Filed 01/07/13 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

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly

assign a district judge to this case.

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 district judge assigned to this case,

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within fifteen (15) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, 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 fourteen (14) days 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: January 7, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 3

Case 1:12-cv-01455-GSA Document 14 Filed 01/07/13 Page 3 of 3