Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00652/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00652-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Alejandro Gomez
Petitioner
People of the State of California
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL ALEJANDRO GOMEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

CALIFORNIA, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:05-cv-00652-LJO-TAG HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS THE PETITION (Doc. 24) 

ORDER DIRECTING OBJECTIONS TO BE

FILED WITHIN TWENTY DAYS

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed on

May 4, 2005. (Doc. 1).

DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Grounds for Motion to Dismiss

On April 27, 2007, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as being filed outside

the one-year limitations period prescribed by Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). (Doc. 24). Rule 4 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a petition if it “plainly appears

from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief

in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

The Ninth Circuit has allowed Respondent’s to file a Motion to Dismiss in lieu of an Answer

if the motion attacks the pleadings for failing to exhaust state remedies or being in violation of the

state’s procedural rules. See e.g., O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990) (using Rule

Case 1:05-cv-00652-LJO -TAG Document 34 Filed 01/30/08 Page 1 of 5
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

4 to evaluate motion to dismiss petition for failure to exhaust state remedies); White v. Lewis, 874

F.2d 599, 602-603 (9th Cir. 1989) (using Rule 4 as procedural grounds to review motion to dismiss

for state procedural default); Hillery v. Pulley, 533 F.Supp. 1189, 1194 & n.12 (E.D. Cal. 1982)

(same). Thus, a respondent can file a motion to dismiss after the court orders a response, and the

Court should use Rule 4 standards to review the motion. See Hillery, 533 F. Supp. at 1194 & n. 12.

In this case, Respondent’s motion to Dismiss is based on the Court’s continuing lack of

personal jurisdiction over Respondent because of Petitioner’s failure to comply with an order of the

Court to amend his petition to name a proper respondent. (Doc. 24). Because Respondent’s motion

to dismiss is similar in procedural standing to a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust state

remedies or for state procedural default and Respondent has not yet filed a formal answer, the Court

will review Respondent’s motion to dismiss pursuant to its authority under Rule 4. 

B. Lack of Jurisdiction Over Respondent

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review

of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition “[i]f it plainly appears

from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). A

petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no

tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14

(9th Cir. 1971).

A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must name the state officer

having custody of him as the respondent to the petition. Rule 2 (a) of the Rules Governing § 2254

Cases; Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Stanley v. California Supreme

Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). Normally, the person having custody of an incarcerated

petitioner is the warden of the prison in which the petitioner is incarcerated because the warden has

“day-to-day control over” the petitioner. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir.

1992). However, the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions is also appropriate. Ortiz, 81

F.3d at 894; Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. Where a petitioner is on probation or parole, the proper

///

Case 1:05-cv-00652-LJO -TAG Document 34 Filed 01/30/08 Page 2 of 5
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

respondent is his probation or parole officer and the official in charge of the parole or probation

agency or state correctional agency. Id. 

Here, on February 28, 2007, in the process of screening, the Court recognized that a

jurisdictional issue was created by Petitioner’s naming as Respondent “The People of the State of

California.” Accordingly, the Court issued an order advising Petitioner of the above-mentioned

defect in personal jurisdiction and ordering Petitioner to remedy that defect by submitting a motion

within thirty days to amend the petition by naming a proper respondent over whom the Court had

jurisdiction. (Doc. 21). Petitioner never responded to the Court’s order. 

On April 27, 2007, Respondent filed the instant motion to dismiss, contending that Petitioner

had failed to follow the Court’s order to file a motion to amend the named respondent. (Doc. 24). 

Thereafter, Petitioner, despite being on notice as to Respondent’s motion to dismiss, never complied

with the Court’s order of February 28, 2007, and still has not, to date, complied with that order. This

is true despite the fact that Petitioner has, during that same time period, filed two motions requesting

the appointment of counsel. (Docs. 28, 32). 

As discussed in the order of February 28, 2007, Petitioner has named as Respondent the “The

People of the State of California.” However, the State of California is not the warden of the

institution where Petitioner is confined and, thus, does not have day-to-day control over Petitioner. 

Petitioner is incarcerated at the California Correctional Institution, Tehachapi, California, and the

proper respondent is the warden of that facility. 

Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent requires dismissal of his habeas petition for

lack of jurisdiction. Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360; Olson v. California Adult Auth., 423 F.2d 1326, 1326

(9th Cir. 1970); see also Billiteri v. United States Bd. Of Parole, 541 F.2d 938, 948 (2d Cir. 1976). 

C. Failure To Comply With The Court’s Order

In addition to the lack of personal jurisdiction over Respondent, the petition should also be

dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to comply with the Court’s order. District courts have the inherent

power to control their dockets and Ain 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

Case 1:05-cv-00652-LJO -TAG Document 34 Filed 01/30/08 Page 3 of 5
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

 4

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, 1260-1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with

an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th

Cir. 1987)(dismissal for failure to comply with court 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 respondents; (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 May 4, 2005,

and the personal jurisdiction issue has remained unresolved for almost one year. The Court cannot

hold this case in abeyance indefinitely while awaiting compliance by Petitioner. The third factor,

risk of prejudice to Respondents, 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,

Inc., 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, given Petitioner’s noncompliance with the Court’s order, no lesser sanction is feasible.

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 132-133; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order of February 28, 2007,

expressly stated as follows: “Failure to amend the petition and state a proper respondent will result in

a recommendation that the petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.” (Doc. 21, p. 3). Thus,

Petitioner had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the

Court’s order.

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-00652-LJO -TAG Document 34 Filed 01/30/08 Page 4 of 5
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

 5

RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS as follows:

1. That Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 24), be GRANTED; and

2. That the habeas corpus Petition (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED for Petitioner’s failure to comply

with the order of the Court and for lack of personal jurisdiction.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 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 twenty (20) 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 Findings and Recommendations.” 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 District Judge 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 Judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-00652-LJO -TAG Document 34 Filed 01/30/08 Page 5 of 5