Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California recommends dismissing Melvin John Grigsby's habeas action without prejudice. The recommendation is based on failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with an order directing the filing of an amended petition after the court's mail was returned as undeliverable.
Holdings
- A court may dismiss an action when a party fails to prosecute, obey a court order, or comply with applicable local rules, including as a sanction under the court’s inherent docket-management authority.
- The balance of the dismissal factors favored dismissal because petitioner failed to respond to the order, implicating the public interest in expeditious resolution, the court’s need to manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice; the prior warning satisfied the requirement to consider less drastic alternatives.
Questions Presented
- Whether the action should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with a court order.
- Whether the dismissal factors support dismissal after petitioner failed to comply with the order to file an amended petition and failed to keep the court apprised of his address.
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, 1260-62 (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, 132-33 (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…