Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00565/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00565-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John N. Katavich
Respondent
Ernest Edward Smith
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

ERNEST EDWARD SMITH,

Petitioner,

v.

JOHN N. KATAVICH, Warden,

Respondent.

1:15-cv-00565 DAD MJS HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 

FOLLOW COURT ORDER

[Doc. 16]

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On April 13, 2015, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The matter 

was stayed, and on July 5, 2016, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why the 

stay should not be vacated. (ECF No. 16.) Petitioner was ordered to respond to the order 

to show cause within thirty (30) days of the date of service. Over thirty (30) days have 

passed, and Petitioner has not responded to the order to show cause.

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) 

Case 1:15-cv-00565-DAD-MJS Document 17 Filed 08/22/16 Page 1 of 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

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, 1423-24 (9th Cir. 1986); 

Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (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 April 13, 2015. 

The Court cannot hold this case in abeyance indefinitely based on Petitioner’s failure to 

respond to an order of the court. 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 

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 

merits, is outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, given 

Petitioner’s failure to communicate with the Court despite an order requiring him to do 

so, no lesser sanction is feasible. 

Petitioner has failed to prosecute the present matter by failing to follow a court 

order. Therefore, it is recommended that the petition must be dismissed. 

Recommendation 

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition be DISMISSED without 

prejudice for failure to prosecute. 

These findings and recommendations are 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 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 Findings and 

Recommendations." Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen 

(14) days (plus three (3) 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 

Case 1:15-cv-00565-DAD-MJS Document 17 Filed 08/22/16 Page 2 of 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

3

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 

right to appeal the District Court's order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th 

Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 19, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00565-DAD-MJS Document 17 Filed 08/22/16 Page 3 of 3