Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02541/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02541-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patrick Covello
Defendant
Corey Robertson
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

COREY ROBERTSON,

Petitioner,

v.

PATRICK COVELLO,

Respondent.

No. 2:24-CV-2541-DAD-DMC-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On September 24, 2024, the Court directed Petitioner to submit either a completed 

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis or the full filing fee for this action within 30 

days. Petitioner was warned that failure to comply may result in dismissal of this action for lack 

of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 110. The order 

was re-served on October 16, 2024. To date, Petitioner has failed to comply.

The Court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of 

dismissal. See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v.

U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's interest 

in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court's need to manage its own docket; (3) the risk 

of prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 

Case 2:24-cv-02541-DAD-DMC Document 7 Filed 12/12/24 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

merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 

F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an 

appropriate sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. See

Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is 

appropriate where there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 

1423 (9th Cir. 1986). Dismissal has also been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to 

comply with an order to file an amended complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992).

Having considered these factors, and in light of Petitioner’s failure to resolve the 

fee status for this case as directed, the Court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends as follows:

1. This action be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and 

failure to comply with court rules and orders.

2. Petitioner's motion for a stay, ECF No. 2, be denied as moot. 

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 14 days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See

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

Dated: December 12, 2024

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-02541-DAD-DMC Document 7 Filed 12/12/24 Page 2 of 2