Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00421/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00421-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
S. Frauenheim
Respondent
Carlos Sanchez
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On April 19, 2016, the Court ordered the petitioner to amend his petition within thirty days of 

the date of service of the order to amend because the original petition was incomplete. (Doc. 6) More 

than the thirty-day period has passed, and Petitioner has not responded.

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or 

with any order of the Court may be grounds for 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, 

CARLOS SANCHEZ,

 Petitioner,

v.

S. FRAUENHEIM,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00421-JLT

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS THE PETITION FOR FAILURE TO 

OBEY A COURT ORDER

ORDER DIRECTING THAT OBJECTIONS BE

FILED WITHIN TWENTY-ONE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO CASE

Case 1:16-cv-00421-DAD-JLT Document 9 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 3
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

1260-1261 (9th Cir. 1992)(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 

complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-1441 (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 lack of prosecution and 

failure to comply with local rules). 

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 Respondents; (4) the public policy favoring 

disposition of cases on their merits; and, (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Henderson, 

779 F.2d at 1423; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-1261; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; 

Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-1424. 

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 March 28, 2016. 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 failure to obey the 

court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 

963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order dated 

April 19, 2016, expressly stated: “Petitioner is forewarned that failure to comply with this Order may

result in an Order of Dismissal or a recommendation that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Local 

Rule 110.” (Doc. 6, p. 3) That admonition was written in bold and underlined. Thus, Petitioner had 

adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order.

ORDER

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to assign a United States District Judge to 

this case.

Case 1:16-cv-00421-DAD-JLT Document 9 Filed 08/15/16 Page 2 of 3
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

RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the instant petition for writ of 

habeas corpus (Doc. 1), be DISMISSED for failure to obey the Court’s orders.

This Findings 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 304 of the Local 

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 21 days

after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, 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 Recommendation.” Replies to the Objections shall be 

served and filed within 10 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 Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00421-DAD-JLT Document 9 Filed 08/15/16 Page 3 of 3