Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02674/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02674-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Javiad Akhtar
Petitioner
Mike Knowles
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAVIAD AKHTAR,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-03-2674 MCE GGH P

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, Warden, ORDER &

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner’s counsel has once again filed a request for an extension of time to file

an amended petition in this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceeding. In an order filed on November 22,

2004, the court, while nevertheless granting petitioner an additional extension of time (60 days),

noted that by then nearly ten months had passed since the January 28, 2004 original scheduling

order. Petitioner was cautioned that no further extensions of time would be granted. See Order,

filed on November 22, 2004. Also noted in that order was counsel for petitioner’s failure to

reference deadlines that had been set by an order filed on July 8, 2004, as well as the vaguely

stated grounds in support of an additional extension of time.

Notwithstanding the court’s explicit caution, on January 21, 2005, petitioner

submitted yet another request for a 90-day extension of time. No doubt because of the court’s

warning, petitioner, acknowledging that the request was not framed as a motion for leave to

Case 2:03-cv-02674-MCE -GGH Document 18 Filed 04/25/05 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

2

conduct discovery, petitioner contended that the request qualified as one. By order filed on

February 25, 2005, the undersigned granted petitioner’s request authorizing funds for a forensic

psychologist and a Punjab interpreter. Petitioner, was, however, warned, this time in bold letters, 

that there would be no further extension of time beyond April 24, 2005 for the filing of either an

amended petition with exhausted claims only on which petitioner intended to proceed, or a

statement identifying exhausted and unexhausted claims together with an amended exhaustedclaims-only petition and a request to hold the amended petition in abeyance. 

On April 20, 2005, petitioner’s counsel has once again pushed the envelope and

this time the court’s long-extended patience has worn thin. On April 20, 2005, without any

reference at all to the court’s repeated cautions regarding seeking any further extensions of time,

petitioner’s counsel seeks, with wholly insufficient cause, yet another 90-day time extension. 

The court will deny petitioner’s latest request made in contravention of the explicit instruction in 

this court’s February 25, 2005 order. See Local Rule 11-110. The undersigned has little choice

at this juncture other than to recommend dismissal of this action for petitioner’s counsel’s failure

to prosecute. 

The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action

with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously

be doubted. [FN3] The power to invoke this sanction is necessary

in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases

and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts. 

Roadway Express, Inc., v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 765, 100 S. Ct. 2455, 2463 (1980), quoting Link

v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-630, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 1388 (1962); Plaut v.

Spendthrift , 514 U.S. 211, 228, 115 S. Ct. 1447, 1457 (1995)(“[t]he rules of finality, both

statutory and judge made, treat,” inter alia, dismissals “for failure to prosecute: as a judgment on

the merits.”).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that petitioner’s April 20, 2005 request for

extension of time to file an amended petition is denied.

\\\\\

Case 2:03-cv-02674-MCE -GGH Document 18 Filed 04/25/05 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

3

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for petitioner’s

failure to prosecute.

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)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. 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).

DATED: 4/25/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

akht2674.ofr 

Case 2:03-cv-02674-MCE -GGH Document 18 Filed 04/25/05 Page 3 of 3