Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00156/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00156-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rosanne Campbell
Respondent
Wade Edward Kelley
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WADE EDWARD KELLEY, ) 

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

ROSANNE CAMPBELL, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:06-cv-00156-LJO-TAG HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING THAT OBJECTIONS

BE FILED WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

DISCUSSION

On February 17, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition. (Doc. 1). On December

17, 2007, the Court issued an order requiring Petitioner to amend his petition within thirty days of

the date of service of the order to amend. (Doc. 17). To date, more than thirty days has passed;

however, 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 (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, as this case has been pending

since February 17, 2006. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Respondent, also weighs in favor of

Case 1:06-cv-00156-LJO -TAG Document 18 Filed 04/03/08 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

dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in

prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 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, 833 F.2d 128, 132-33 (9th Cir. 1987); Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order of

December 17, 2007, expressly stated: “Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order will

result in a recommendation for dismissal of the petition pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.” (Doc. 17,

p. 4). Thus, Petitioner had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance

with the Court’s order.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), 

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)(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 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 District

Judge 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 Judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00156-LJO -TAG Document 18 Filed 04/03/08 Page 2 of 2