Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01243/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01243-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary J. Battle
Petitioner
C. Cooper
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

GARY J. BATTLE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

C. COOPER, )

)

Respondent. )

)

1:07-cv-01243-AWI-DLB-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RE: DISMISSAL OF ACTION

(Doc. 5) 

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 August 31, 2007, the court issued an order requiring

Petitioner to show cause as to what claim, if any, were presented

to the state’s highest court, within thirty (30) days from the date

of service of that order. 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

Case 1:07-cv-01243-AWI-DLB Document 6 Filed 10/25/07 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

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 court th

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. 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

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 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 August 31, 2007, expressly stated: “Failure to comply with

this order may result in the action be [sic] dismissed for failure

to comply with a court order. Local Rule 11-110.” Thus,

Petitioner had adequate warning that dismissal could result from

his noncompliance with the court’s order.

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be

DISMISSED for Petitioner's failure to comply with the court’s order

of August 31, 2007. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United

States District Judge assigned to the case pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the

Case 1:07-cv-01243-AWI-DLB Document 6 Filed 10/25/07 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

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 Findings and

Recommendations.” 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: October 25, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01243-AWI-DLB Document 6 Filed 10/25/07 Page 3 of 3