Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01647/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01647-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harris
Respondent
Raymundo Sandoval
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMUNDO SANDOVAL, 

 

Petitioner,

 

vs.

HARRIS,

 

Respondent.

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:05-CV-1647 REC WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE

TO OBEY A COURT ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ

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

On December 30, 2005, the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus

was filed in this Court. On February 28 2006, the Court ordered Petitioner to

submit, within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order, an

application to proceed in forma pauperis and a certified copy of the prison

trust account statement or pay the $5.00 filing fee.

Over thirty (30) days have passed, and Petitioner has not complied with

the court order.

DISCUSSION

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

Case 1:05-cv-01647-LJO -WMW Document 5 Filed 04/20/06 Page 1 of 4
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

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

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

plaintiffs 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.

Case 1:05-cv-01647-LJO -WMW Document 5 Filed 04/20/06 Page 2 of 4
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

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. The third factor, risk of prejudice to

defendants, 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 to pay the filing fee or submit a new 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 had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his

noncompliance with the court’s order.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be

DISMISSED for Petitioner's failure to comply with a court order. 

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 days after being served with these

findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the

court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate

Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The parties are is advised that

Case 1:05-cv-01647-LJO -WMW Document 5 Filed 04/20/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

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 20, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

bl0dc4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01647-LJO -WMW Document 5 Filed 04/20/06 Page 4 of 4