Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00923/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00923-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ricardo Gaxiola-Sanchez
Petitioner
Eric Holder
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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RICARDO GAXIOLA-SANCHEZ, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

ERIC HOLDER, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-0923-MCE-EFB P (TEMP) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On July 2, 2015, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the operative 

habeas petition. ECF No. 12. Petitioner filed nothing in response. On November 13, 2015, the 

court ordered petitioner to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion and to 

do so within thirty days. The court admonished petitioner that his “failure to comply with this 

order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.” ECF No. 16 at 2. More than 

thirty days have passed and the petitioner has not complied with the order. To date, he has failed 

to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss, despite the court 

providing him with two opportunities to do so. ECF Nos. 13, 16. It is therefore recommended 

that this action be dismissed. 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-00923-MCE-EFB Document 17 Filed 03/04/16 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

DISCUSSION 

 “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an 

action for failure to comply with any order of the court.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 

(9th Cir. 1992). In Ferdik, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court did not 

abuse its discretion when it dismissed a pro se litigant’s civil rights action for failing to file an 

amended complaint. The court explained that, in deciding whether to dismiss a case for a 

litigant’s failure to comply with a court order, the district court must weigh five 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.” 

Id. at 1260-61 (quoting Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.3d 829, 831 (9th 

Cir. 1986)). 

 In this case, the first two factors as well as the fifth factor cited by the court in Ferdik

strongly support dismissal of this action. This case has been pending before the court since April 

2015, and respondent filed its motion to dismiss almost eight months ago. Petitioner’s repeated 

failure to comply with court orders and the Local Rules strongly suggests that further time spent 

by the court on this case will consume scarce judicial resources in addressing litigation which 

petitioner has demonstrated he has no intention to diligently pursue. Notably, the court has 

repeatedly warned petitioner that his failure to file his opposition to respondent’s motion to 

dismiss would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution. 

Inexplicably, petitioner has failed to file any opposition to respondent’s pending motion to 

dismiss. Under these circumstances, there is no suitable less drastic alternative to dismissal of 

this case. In short, petitioner’s refusal to follow the court’s orders has left the court stymied and 

made it impossible for this civil action to be adjudicated by the court. Therefore, due to 

petitioner’s conduct, the undersigned is left with no choice but to recommend dismissal of this 

action. 

 The third factor, the risk of prejudice to the respondent, also weighs in favor of dismissal. 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-00923-MCE-EFB Document 17 Filed 03/04/16 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

Petitioner’s failure to oppose respondent’s motion to dismiss prevents the respondent from 

addressing petitioner’s claims and unnecessarily delays resolution of this action thereby forcing 

respondent to incur additional time and expense. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 

1994) (“When considering prejudice to the defendant, ‘the failure to prosecute diligently is 

sufficient by itself to justify dismissal, even in the absence of a showing of actual prejudice to the 

defendant from the failure . . . . The law presumes injury from unreasonable delay.’”) (quoting

Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976)). 

 Finally, the fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits, weighs 

against dismissal of this action. However, for the reasons set forth above, the first, second, third, 

and fifth factors support dismissal. Under the circumstances of this case, those factors outweigh 

the general public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. 

CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 

prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) due to petitioner’s failure to 

prosecute and comply with the court’s orders. 

 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 fourteen 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 response to the 

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen 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. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: March 3, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-00923-MCE-EFB Document 17 Filed 03/04/16 Page 3 of 3