Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00851/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00851-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darrell E. Kilgore
Petitioner
On Habeas Corpus
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

DARRELL E. KILGORE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

ON HABEAS CORPUS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

1:06-cv-00851-OWW-DLB-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

re: DISMISSAL OF ACTION

(Doc. 8) 

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 September 13, 2006, the court issued an order requiring

Petitioner to file an amended petition curing the deficiencies

outlined therein, 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 1:06-cv-00851-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 10/31/06 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 September 13, 2006, expressly stated: “Failure to comply

with this order may result in the action be dismissed for failure

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

Petitioner had adequate warning that dismissal would result from

his noncompliance with the court’s order.

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be

DISMISSED for Petitioner's failure to obey the court’s order of

September 13, 2006. These Findings 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

Case 1:06-cv-00851-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 10/31/06 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

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 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: October 31, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00851-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 10/31/06 Page 3 of 3