Edwige Miranda Mondesir v. The People of Ventura

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 EDWIGE MIRANDA MONDESIR, Case No. 2:25-cv-03785 AH (ADS)

12 Petitioner,

13 v. ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 14 BIRKHOLZ, CORPUS [JS-6]

15 Respondent.

16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State 19 Custody filed by Petitioner Edwige Miranda Mondesir. (Dkt. No. 1.) The gravamen of 20 the Petition asserts Petitioner and his family have been subjected to state-sanctioned 21 harassment and abuse arising out of an eviction enforcement. (Id.) On June 18, 2025, 22 the Court issued an Order Regarding Screening of Petition (“OSP”) because Petitioner 23 does not appear to be “in custody” for purposes of federal habeas relief. (Dkt. No. 8.) 24 Petitioner was expressly warned that failure to respond to the OSP may result in 1 dismissal of the Petition. (Id.) The OSP required Petitioner to respond by 2 July 18, 2025. (Id.) As of the date of this Order, Petitioner has not filed a response or 3 otherwise communicated with the Court. 4 II. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS 5 Petitioner has failed to prosecute the Petition and comply with court orders.

6 Petitioner’s failure to respond despite court orders to do so reflects a lack of prosecution 7 of the case. In Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988), the Ninth Circuit cited the 8 following factors as relevant to the Court’s determination of whether to dismiss an 9 action for failure to prosecute: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 10 litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 11 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 12 (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Id. at 1440. 13 Upon consideration of the five Carey factors, the Court finds that Petitioner’s 14 failure to prosecute his case and failure to comply with the Court’s orders warrant 15 dismissal. The first two Carey factors—the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving 16 this litigation and the Court's interest in managing the docket—weigh in favor of

17 dismissal. The Court cannot hold this case in abeyance indefinitely awaiting Petitioner’s 18 response to the Court’s directive. The third factor—risk of prejudice to Respondent— 19 also weighs in favor of dismissal since a presumption of injury arises from the 20 occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 21 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976) (stating that the “law presumes injury from 22 unreasonable delay”). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases 23 on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal. 24 1 Finally, Petitioner has already been cautioned of the consequences of his failure 2 to prosecute. Petitioner has been afforded the opportunity to show why the action 3 should not be dismissed but failed to respond. No sanction lesser than dismissal is 4 feasible here. Thus, dismissal of this action is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil 5 Procedure 41(b).

6 III. PETITIONER FAILS TO SHOW HE IS “IN CUSTODY” 7 The Court’s OSP explained federal habeas relief appears to be unavailable to 8 Petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. No. 8 at 2.) Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, federal 9 habeas relief is only available to a petitioner who is “in custody pursuant to the 10 judgment of a State court.” The petitioner must be “in custody” at the time the petition 11 is filed. See Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968). The “in custody” 12 requirement is threshold jurisdictional issue. See United States v. Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 13 565 (9th Cir. 2014). 14 Here, Petitioner fails to show he is in custody pursuant to a state court judgment. 15 Although the Petition lists Petitioner’s place of detention as the Ventura County 16 courthouse, the Petition discusses Petitioner’s challenges traveling from Los Angeles to

17 Ventura for court hearings. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2, 5.) Further, based on the Court’s review of 18 public records, Petitioner was not “in custody” in the California prison system or the jail 19 closest to the Ventura County courthouse at the time the Petition was filed.1 Petitioner 20 also fails to identify a state court judgment. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2 (marking an “X” through 21

22 1 See California Incarcerated Records and Information Search, https://ciris.mt.cdcr.ca.gov/ (last visited on June 5, 2025); Inmate Search, Ventura 23 County Sherriff’s Official Website, https://sheriff.venturacounty.gov/inmateinformation/inmate-search/ (last visited on 24 June 5, 2025). 1 || the space to provide case number and conviction information).) Moreover, based on the 2 Court’s review of public records, the Ventura County Superior Court has not entered any 3 ||judgment against Petitioner.2 Accordingly, Petitioner fails to establish the Court has 4 ||jurisdiction over the Petition. 5 ||IV. CONCLUSION 6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action be summarily dismissed pursuant 7 ||to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 || Dated: SEPTEMBER 5, 2025 pratt wars” W THE HONORABLE AN WANG United States District Judge 12 Presented by: 13 /s/ Autumn D. Spaeth 14 || THE HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 |!2 See Online Public Access, Superior Court of California, County of Ventura, https://secured.countyofventura.org/courtservices/Information/CaseResults.aspx (last 24 || visited September 3, 2025).