Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00214/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00214-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
INS
Respondent
Sonia Medero-Naranjo
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

 The United States Postal Service returned the order on March 21, 2005, as undeliverable. A notation on the

envelope indicates that petitioner is out of custody. However, petitioner has not notified the court of any change in his

address. Absent such notice, service at a party’s prior address is fully effective. Local Rule 83-182(f). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SONIA MEDERO-NARANJO, 1:05-CV-00214-REC-DLB-HC

Petitioner,

vs. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO

IMMIGRATION AND OBEY A COURT ORDER

NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent..

 /

Petitioner (“petitioner”) is proceeding pro se in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On March 10, 2005, the court issued an order requiring petitioner to

submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee within thirty days of the date of

service of the order. More than thirty days have passed and petitioner has not complied with or

otherwise responded to the court’s order.1

Local Rule 11-110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

Local Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and

all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to

Case 1:05-cv-00214-REC-DLB Document 7 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

27

28 2

control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where

appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).

A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure

to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-

54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of

complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with

local rule requiring pro se petitioners to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v.

Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to lack of prosecution and failure to

comply with local rules). In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure

to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, 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 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits;

and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d

at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 

In the instant case, 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 15, 2005. The third factor, risk of prejudice to respondent, 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 his 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

requiring petitioner to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis expressly stated: “Failure to

comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed." Thus, petitioner

Case 1:05-cv-00214-REC-DLB Document 7 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

27

28 3

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 based

on petitioner's failure to obey the court’s order of March 10, 2005.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days

after being servedwith these Findings and Recommendations, petitioner may file written objections with

the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” Petitioner is 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: April 22, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00214-REC-DLB Document 7 Filed 04/25/05 Page 3 of 3