Summary
The court recommends dismissing William Anthony Bond’s habeas action without prejudice because he failed to state a claim, failed to prosecute, and failed to comply with orders directing him to file an amended petition and respond to an order to show cause. The document also orders random assignment of a district judge and advises the parties of the deadline for filing objections to the findings and recommendations.
Holdings
- Dismissal without prejudice was warranted because petitioner failed to file an amended petition, failed to respond to the order to show cause, and had been warned that noncompliance could result in dismissal.
Questions Presented
- Whether the action should be dismissed without prejudice because petitioner failed to state a claim, failed to prosecute, and failed to comply with court orders.
- Whether the factors governing dismissal for failure to prosecute and noncompliance with court orders supported the recommended sanction of dismissal.
Disposition
other
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…