Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01486/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01486-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
A. K. Scribner
Respondent
Roderick Washington
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

RODERICK WASHINGTON, 1:05-cv-1486 REC TAG HC

Petitioner,

vs. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO DISMISS PETITION FOR LACK 

 OF PROSECUTION

A. K. SCRIBNER, 

Respondent.

 /

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On March 22, 2006, the Court issued an order requiring Petitioner to submit an application to

proceed in forma pauperis and a certified copy of his prison trust account statement for the entire sixmonth period immediately preceding the filing of the petition OR pay the $5.00 filing fee for this

action, within thirty days from the date of service of that order. (Doc. 39) The thirty-day period has

passed, and 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 Respondent; (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 August 27,

2004. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Respondent, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a

Case 1:05-cv-01486-LJO-TAG Document 41 Filed 06/07/06 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

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 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 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 the instant petition be DISMISSED

for Petitioner's failure to prosecute. 

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court 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

thirty (30) 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 Report and Recommendation.” 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 Court 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 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-01486-LJO-TAG Document 41 Filed 06/07/06 Page 2 of 2