Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01051/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01051-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
People of the State of California
Respondent
James Michael Prasad
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

JAMES MICHAEL PRASAD, 1:06-CV-01051-AWI-LJO-HC

Petitioner,

vs. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

 /

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On September 15, 2006, the court issued an order requiring Petitioner to submit a new

application to proceed in forma pauperis for a non-prisoner or pay the $5.00 filing fee for this action,

within thirty (30) days from the date of service of that order. 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 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 (9 Cir. 1988). The court th

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 7, 2006.

Case 1:06-cv-01051-AWI-LJO Document 6 Filed 11/03/06 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

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, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9 Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases th

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 of September 15, 2006, 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.

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action 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: November 2, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

23ehd0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01051-AWI-LJO Document 6 Filed 11/03/06 Page 2 of 2