N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LUIS M ENDOZA,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt, v. JEFFREY A. B EAR

D, Se c re ta

ry of C DC R , R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 15-16194 D.C . No. 2:98-c v-02150-M C E-GGH M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia M o rrison C . Engla

nd, Jr., Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 12, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

N NLAIN, GOULD, a

nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Luis M e ndoz a

a ppe a ls the dism issa l of his fe de ra l ha be a s pe tition for fa ilure to prose c ute . B e c a

use the fa c ts a

re known to the

pa rtie s, we re p e at

the m only a s ne c e ssa ry to e xpla in our de c ision. 

# FIL ED D EC 16 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).I

Dism issa l for fa i lure to prose c ute is a “ ha rsh pe na lty ” that is “ a

ppropria te only in e xtre m e c irc um sta

n c e s of unre a sona

b l e de la y .” He rnande

z v . C ity of El Monte , 138 F.3d 393, 400 (9th C ir. 1998) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). The c ourt m ust we igh five fa c t ors whe n c onside ring whe the r suc h dism issa l is warran te d: (1) the public ’ s inte re st in e xpe d itious re solution to litiga tion; (2) the c ourt’ s ne e d to m ana ge its doc ke t; (3) the public polic y favoring disposition of c a se s on the ir m e rits; (4) theava ila bility of le ss dra stic sa

nc tions; a nd (5) the risk of pre judic e to the de fe nda

n ts. Se e id. at 399. W e “ m ay a ffirm a dism issa l whe re at le a st four fa c tors support dism issa l , or whe re at le a s t thre e fa c tors strongly support dism

i ssa l.” Id. (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd c ita tions omitte d). Although the distric t c ourt c onsulte d the prope r fa c tors, it e rre d in its c a lc ulat ion of the fa c tors for a nd a ga inst dism

i ssa l . B a se d on the distric t c ourt’ s own findings, only

one of the five fa c tors supports dism issa l. A First, the distric t c ourt did not err in c onc luding tha t M e ndoz a

unre a sona

bly de la y e d by fa iling to ta

ke any a c tion in this c a se
— inc luding c om m unic ating with his a ttorne y — for m ore tha

n fourte e n y e ars. De spite be ing a b andone d by

his
attorne y , M e ndoz a

ha s not shown tha

t he pursue d his c a s e with re a sona b le
2dilige n c e . C f. Luna v . K

e r nan , 784 F.3d 640, 650 (9th C ir. 2015) (c la i m of re a s ona ble dilige nc e de spite attorne y m isc o n duc t

c onside rs whe the r pe titione r ke pt in re a sona

ble c onta c t with his a

ttorne y ); D oev . Busby , 661 F.3d 1001, 1013 (9th C ir. 2011) (sa

m e ). The public ’ s inte re st in e xpe ditious re solution to litiga tion favors dismissa l. B Se c ond, we de fe r to the d istric t c ourt’ s de t e rm i nat ion tha t its doc ke t m ana ge m e nt ne e ds do not support dism issa l. Se e Pagtalunan v. Galaza , 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th C ir. 2002). C Third, the public polic y

favoring disposition of c a se s on the ir m e rits we ighs
a ga inst dism

issa l
. Se e id. at 643. D Fourth, the distric t c ourt de te rm ine d tha t the re is a

le ss dra stic a l te rnative to dism issa l a

v a ila ble : the c ourt c ould lift the sta y and a l low M e n doz a to proc e e d on his pe nding a

m e nde d pe tition, which inc lude s only a lre a dy -e xha

u ste d c l a im s. The
ava ila bility of this le s se r sa

n c tion we ighs a ga i nst dismissa l.

3E

Fina lly , the distric t c ourt de te rm ine d tha t the State would not suffer a c tua l pre j udic e if M e ndoz a

we re pe rm itte d only

to proc e e d with his al re a d y -e xha uste d c la im s. The Stat e doe s not c ha lle nge tha t fa c t ua l de te rm ination on a

p pe a l, a nd we se e n o re a son to c onc lude tha t i t wa s m a de in e rror. This la c k of pre judic e should have we ighe d a ga i nst dismissa l
. Se e Ande rson v . Air W e st, Inc
. , 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th C ir. 1976) (“ [I] f the re is a showing tha

t no a c tua l pre

judic e oc c urre d, tha

t fa c t or should be c o n side re d whe n de te rm i ning whe the r the tria l c ourt e xe rc ise d sound disc re tion.” ). The distric t c ourt e rre d in c ounting this fac tor in fa vor of dism issa l. II In sum , four of the five re le va nt fa c tors we igh a ga inst dism issa l; it wa s a

n a buse o f disc re tion to dism iss M e ndoz a ’ s pe tition in the se c irc um sta nc e s. Se e , e .g. , Yourish v . C

al. Amplifier , 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th C ir. 1999) (thre e or four fa c tors re quire d to support dism

issa l); He rnande

z , 138 F.3d a

t 399 (sa m e ). Inste a d, the distric t c o urt should ha

ve im pose d the le ss dra stic sa

nc tion it identifie d. On re m and, the c ourt sha ll im pose suc h sa nc tion, a llowing M e ndoz a to proc e e d with the a m e nde d pe tition hefile d with thec ourt in Ja nua ry 2000. RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D.
4