Summary
The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington ordered Mubashar Hassan to show cause why his habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 should not be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee or respond to an earlier deficiency order. The court set a January 5, 2026 deadline and stated that, absent a timely response, it would recommend dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Holdings
- A federal district court has inherent power and discretion to dismiss a civil case for lack of prosecution when the failure to prosecute is unreasonable.
- When considering involuntary dismissal for failure to prosecute, the court must weigh the public interest in expeditious resolution, the court's need to manage its docket, prejudice to the defendant, the policy favoring disposition on the merits, and the availability of less drastic alternatives.
Questions Presented
- Whether the court may require a habeas petitioner who appears able to pay the filing fee to pay the fee or show cause regarding inability to pay.
- Whether petitioner's failure to pay the filing fee or respond to the court's order warranted an order to show cause regarding dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (7)
- McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991)(followed)
- Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984)(followed)
- Young v. United States, 465 F. App'x 597, 598 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
- Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002)(followed)
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
- Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Arutyunyan, 93 F.4th 1136, 1147 (9th Cir. 2024)(followed)
- Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…