1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GERONIMO MEJIA, Case No. 1:23-cv-01730-CDB (HC)
12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 13 v. HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR PETITIONER’S 14 TRENT ALLEN, FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND TO OBEY COURT ORDERS 15 Respondent. (Doc. 1) 16 14-DAY DEADLINE 17 Clerk of Court to Assign District Judge 18 19 Petitioner Geronimo Mejia (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner, proceeds pro se and in forma 20 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). 21 Background 22 On June 24, 2025, following a preliminary screening of the petition, the undersigned 23 ordered Petitioner to file an amended petition to remedy certain identified deficiencies. (Doc. 24 15). Specifically, Petitioner did not use the approved form and therefore omitted critical 25 information regarding exhaustion of state remedies. Additionally, Petitioner did not sign the 26 petition1, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) and Local Rule 131(b). Finally, it 27 is not clear that Petitioner is entitled to relief as the petition fails to include more than vague and 1 conclusory allegations in support of Petitioner’s claims and does not include any facts to support 2 his allegations. 3 Petitioner was ordered to file either an amended petition or a request to stand on his 4 original petition within 30 days of issuance of the screening order. (Doc. 15 at 4). Petitioner was 5 cautioned that any failure to comply would result in a recommendation that the action be 6 dismissed. (Id.). More than 30 days have elapsed, and Petitioner has failed to file either an 7 amended petition or a request to stand on the petition as screened. 8 Governing Legal Standards 9 Local Rule 110, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provides that 10 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may 11 be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of 12 the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and 13 may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the 14 action. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). A court may dismiss an 15 action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local 16 rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure 17 to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 18 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 19 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local 20 rules). 21 “In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is 22 required to weigh several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 23 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 24 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 25 sanctions.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks & 26 citation omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do and are not conditions that 27 must be met in order for a court to take action. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products 1 Similarly, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows the Court to dismiss an action if 2 the petitioner fails to comply with a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). “By its plain text, a Rule 3 41(b) dismissal . . . requires a court order with which an offending [petitioner] failed to comply.” 4 Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 891 (9th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation 5 marks, citation, and footnote omitted). The Court must analyze five factors before dismissing a 6 case pursuant to Rule 41(b): “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) 7 the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the [respondents]; (4) the public 8 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 9 alternatives.” Id. (quoting Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)); 10 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). These factors guide a court in deciding 11 what to do and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re 12 Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) 13 (citation omitted). 14 Discussion 15 Here, Petitioner has failed to comply with the Court’s order and Local Rules. Petitioner 16 has filed no response to the Court’s order to file an amended petition or request to stand on the 17 petition as screened, and the time to do so has expired. There are no other reasonable alternatives 18 available to address Petitioner’s failure to respond and otherwise obey this Court’s orders. Thus, 19 the first and second factors—the expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to 20 manage its docket—weigh in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 21 The third factor, risk of prejudice to Respondent, also weighs fairly in favor of dismissal 22 since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an 23 action. See Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). This matter cannot proceed 24 further without Petitioner’s participation to prosecute the case with a petition that (1) is signed by 25 the Petitioner; (2) identifies relevant information concerning whether Petitioner has exhausted his 26 state remedies; and (3) provides factual support for the grounds for relief. (See Doc. 15 at 2-3). 27 The presumption of injury holds given Petitioner’s unreasonable delay in prosecuting this action. 1 Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 2 The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors 3 disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, 4 “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward 5 disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction.” In re PPA, 460 6 F.3d at 1228.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GERONIMO MEJIA, Case No. 1:23-cv-01730-CDB (HC)
12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 13 v. HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR PETITIONER’S 14 TRENT ALLEN, FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND TO OBEY COURT ORDERS 15 Respondent. (Doc. 1) 16 14-DAY DEADLINE 17 Clerk of Court to Assign District Judge 18 19 Petitioner Geronimo Mejia (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner, proceeds pro se and in forma 20 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). 21 Background 22 On June 24, 2025, following a preliminary screening of the petition, the undersigned 23 ordered Petitioner to file an amended petition to remedy certain identified deficiencies. (Doc. 24 15). Specifically, Petitioner did not use the approved form and therefore omitted critical 25 information regarding exhaustion of state remedies. Additionally, Petitioner did not sign the 26 petition1, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) and Local Rule 131(b). Finally, it 27 is not clear that Petitioner is entitled to relief as the petition fails to include more than vague and 1 conclusory allegations in support of Petitioner’s claims and does not include any facts to support 2 his allegations. 3 Petitioner was ordered to file either an amended petition or a request to stand on his 4 original petition within 30 days of issuance of the screening order. (Doc. 15 at 4). Petitioner was 5 cautioned that any failure to comply would result in a recommendation that the action be 6 dismissed. (Id.). More than 30 days have elapsed, and Petitioner has failed to file either an 7 amended petition or a request to stand on the petition as screened. 8 Governing Legal Standards 9 Local Rule 110, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provides that 10 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may 11 be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of 12 the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and 13 may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the 14 action. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). A court may dismiss an 15 action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local 16 rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure 17 to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 18 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 19 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local 20 rules). 21 “In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is 22 required to weigh several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 23 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 24 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 25 sanctions.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks & 26 citation omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do and are not conditions that 27 must be met in order for a court to take action. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products 1 Similarly, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows the Court to dismiss an action if 2 the petitioner fails to comply with a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). “By its plain text, a Rule 3 41(b) dismissal . . . requires a court order with which an offending [petitioner] failed to comply.” 4 Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 891 (9th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation 5 marks, citation, and footnote omitted). The Court must analyze five factors before dismissing a 6 case pursuant to Rule 41(b): “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) 7 the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the [respondents]; (4) the public 8 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 9 alternatives.” Id. (quoting Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)); 10 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). These factors guide a court in deciding 11 what to do and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re 12 Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) 13 (citation omitted). 14 Discussion 15 Here, Petitioner has failed to comply with the Court’s order and Local Rules. Petitioner 16 has filed no response to the Court’s order to file an amended petition or request to stand on the 17 petition as screened, and the time to do so has expired. There are no other reasonable alternatives 18 available to address Petitioner’s failure to respond and otherwise obey this Court’s orders. Thus, 19 the first and second factors—the expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to 20 manage its docket—weigh in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 21 The third factor, risk of prejudice to Respondent, also weighs fairly in favor of dismissal 22 since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an 23 action. See Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). This matter cannot proceed 24 further without Petitioner’s participation to prosecute the case with a petition that (1) is signed by 25 the Petitioner; (2) identifies relevant information concerning whether Petitioner has exhausted his 26 state remedies; and (3) provides factual support for the grounds for relief. (See Doc. 15 at 2-3). 27 The presumption of injury holds given Petitioner’s unreasonable delay in prosecuting this action. 1 Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 2 The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors 3 disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, 4 “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward 5 disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction.” In re PPA, 460 6 F.3d at 1228. Petitioner has not moved this case forward toward disposition on the merits. He 7 has instead failed to comply with this Court’s orders and, thus, is impeding the progress of this 8 action. Therefore, the fourth factor — the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 9 merits — also weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 10 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in 11 dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. 12 Here, as discussed above, the Court’s order cautioned Petitioner that failure to comply would 13 result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. (Doc. 15 at 4). 14 Conclusion and Recommendation 15 For the reasons given above, the Clerk of Courts is DIRECTED to assign a United States 16 District Judge to this action. 17 Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows: 18 1. The Court DISMISS this action for Petitioner’s failure to prosecute this action and 19 to comply with the Court’s orders (see E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110); and 20 2. The Clerk of the Court be DIRECTED to close this case. 21 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 22 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 23 after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 24 objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to 25 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed 15 pages without leave 26 of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the Objections, 27 but a party may refer to exhibits in the record by CM/ECF document and page number. Any 1 | reviewing these Findings and Recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)()(C). 2 A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time may result in the waiver 3 | of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). 4 | IT IS SO ORDERED. ° Dated: _ August 5, 2025 | hr 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28