Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California recommends dismissing Charles Graves’s habeas action without prejudice. The recommendation is based on failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with orders requiring an amended petition and a response to an order to show cause.
Holdings
- A federal court may dismiss an action, including a habeas action, for failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, pursuant to its inherent authority to control its docket.
- Dismissal without prejudice is warranted because the relevant factors favor dismissal after petitioner ignored the order to amend and the order to show cause, and the court provided adequate warning that noncompliance would result in dismissal.
Questions Presented
- Whether the action should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with court orders.
- Whether the five-factor dismissal framework and consideration of less drastic alternatives support dismissal where the petitioner ignored an order to amend and a subsequent order to show cause.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (8)
- Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)
- Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)(followed)
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
- Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988)(followed)
- Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)(followed)
- Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
- Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998)(followed)
- Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…