Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01160/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01160-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Gottlieb
Respondent
Aaron Thornton
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 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON THORNTON, 1:06-cv-1160-OWW-TAG HC

Petitioner,

vs. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

DAVID GOTTLIEB, HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1)

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 September 25, 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 (30) days from the date

of service of that order. (Doc. 4). On October 4, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis which did not include a certified copy of his prison trust account.

(Doc. 5). On October 10, 2006, the Court ordered Petitioner to file a new motion to proceed in

forma pauperis that includes a certified copy of the trust account statement within thirty (30) days. 

(Doc. 6). 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

Case 1:06-cv-01160-LJO -TAG Document 9 Filed 02/01/07 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

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 (9th Cir. 1988). 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. 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 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Malone v.

U.S. Postal Service, 833F.2d 128, 132-33 (9th Cir. 1987); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d at 1424. 

The Court’s order of October 10, 2006 expressly stated: “Failure to comply with this order will result

in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.” (Doc. 6, p. 2). Thus, Petitioner had adequate

warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this petition for writ of habeas

corpus (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED for Petitioner's failure to prosecute. 

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

fifteen (15) 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 

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-01160-LJO -TAG Document 9 Filed 02/01/07 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

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 31, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-01160-LJO -TAG Document 9 Filed 02/01/07 Page 3 of 3