Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00001/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00001-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roderick Washington
Petitioner
J. Woodford
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK WASHINGTON, 1:06-cv-00001-OWW-TAG-HC

Petitioner, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 TO DISMISS PETITION 

vs.

 (Doc. 1) 

J. WOODFORD, 

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On March 21, 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. 4). The thirty-day period has passed, and 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. 1988). The th

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 August 23,

2005. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Respondents, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a

Case 1:06-cv-00001-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 07/19/06 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

presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. 

Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9 Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring th

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 of March 21,

2006, expressly stated: “Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed.” (Doc. 4). 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 action be DISMISSED for

Petitioner's failure to prosecute and failure to comply with an order of this Court. 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)(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: July 19, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00001-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 07/19/06 Page 2 of 2