Sanchez v. Frauenheim

Full title: CARLOS SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. S. FRAUENHEIM, Respondent.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 13, 2016

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00421-JLT (E.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2016)

Opinion

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

08-13-2016

CARLOS SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. S. FRAUENHEIM, Respondent.

Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

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 (9^th 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 (9^th Cir. 1995)(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-1261 (9^th Cir. 1992)(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-1441 (9^th 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 (9^th Cir. 1987)(dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9^th 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 (9^th 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.

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