Dylan James Anderson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 17, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02954
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DYLAN JAMES ANDERSON, No. 2:24-cv-02954-EFB (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding without counsel in this petition for writ of 18 habeas corpus. ECF No. 1. On April 9, 2025, respondent filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 10. 19 Petitioner did not respond to the motion to dismiss; nor did he request an extension of time to 20 respond. As a result, on October 29, 2025, this court issued an order to show cause requiring 21 petitioner to file within thirty days an opposition to respondent’s motion. ECF No. 11. The order 22 cautioned petitioner that “[f]ailure to file an opposition will be deemed as consent to have the: (a) 23 action dismissed for lack of prosecution; and (b) action dismissed based on petitioner’s failure to 24 comply with these rules and a court order. Said failure shall result in a recommendation that this 25 action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).” Id. Petitioner has still 26 not filed a response to respondent’s motion to dismiss; indeed, petitioner has not filed anything at 27 all in this action since respondent filed its motion in April 2025. 28 //// 1 Having filed this action, petitioner is obligated to prosecute it by timely responding to 2 filing deadlines or seeking extensions of those deadlines from the court. Local Rule 230(l) 3 provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file written opposition or to file a statement 4 of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion. . . .” 5 Local Rule 230(l). Furthermore, Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for 6 dismissal if the plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or to comply with the federal rules or a court 7 order.1 Here plaintiff has essentially ignored the defendant’s motion, ignored the federal and 8 court rules and the court’s order, which specifically directed him to file an opposition, and 9 ignored the admonition in that order that a failure to comply would “result in a recommendation 10 that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).” ECF No. 11. 11 As noted supra, in addition to failing to respond to respondent’s motion or to the court’s 12 order to show cause, petitioner has not filed anything with this court in many months. 13 In determining to recommend that this action be dismissed, the court has considered the 14 five factors set forth in Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Petitioner’s failure to 15 comply with the Local Rules has impeded the expeditious resolution of the instant litigation and 16 has burdened the court’s docket, consuming scarce judicial resources in addressing litigation 17 which petitioner is not currently diligently prosecuting. Although public policy favors disposition 18 of cases on their merits, petitioner’s failure to oppose respondent’s pending motion has interfered 19 with the court’s ability to do so. In addition, respondent is prejudiced by the inability to reply to 20 opposition briefing and have the case resolved. Finally, the court has informed petitioner of the 21 requirements under the Local Rules and granted ample additional time to oppose the pending 22 motion to dismiss, all to no avail. The court finds no suitable alternative to dismissal of this 23 action. 24 //// 25

26 1 “Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure, 27 even though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362 1364-65 (9th Cir. 1986). 28 ] It is HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a district judge to this 2 || action. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule 3 || of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the Clerk of Court be directed to administratively terminate all 4 | pending motions, including respondent’s motion to dismiss. See also E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(1). 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 6 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 7 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 8 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 9 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 10 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. 11 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). In 12 | his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the 13 || event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case.

15 || Dated: December 16, 2025 Zatl big T= LACH EDMUND F. BRENNAN 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28