Honabach v. State of Nevada

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: July 15, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00168
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 EDWARD JOSEPH HONABACH, Case No. 3:25-cv-00168-ART-CLB

6 Petitioner, ORDER v. 7 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 8 Respondents. 9 10 Petitioner Edward Joseph Honabach, a pro se Nevada prisoner, initiated 11 this case by submitting a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 12 2254 (ECF No. 1-1). The Court ordered Honabach to either file an application to 13 proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) or pay the $5 filing fee no later than April 30, 14 2025. ECF No. 3. The order was returned as undeliverable with a notation 15 indicating that Honabach is not in custody at the Northern Nevada Correctional 16 Center. ECF No. 4. The Local Rules of Practice require all parties, including 17 habeas petitioners, to immediately file with the court written notice of any change 18 of address. LR IA 3-1, LR 2-2. The Local Rules also warn that failure to comply 19 may result in dismissal of the action, with or without prejudice, or other 20 sanctions as the court deems appropriate. Id. See also Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 21 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A party, not the district court, bears the burden of 22 keeping the court apprised of any changes in his mailing address.”). 23 The Court warned Honabach that a failure to comply would result in the 24 dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further advance notice. Id. 25 To date, Honabach has not paid the $5 filing fee, filed an IFP Application, 26 requested an extension of time, or taken any other action to prosecute this case. 27 // 28 // 1 I. DISCUSSION 2 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 3 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 4 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 5 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based 6 on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 7 King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 8 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 9 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 10 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 11 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 12 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 13 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 14 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 15 alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 16 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 17 Cir. 1987)). 18 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 19 litigation and the court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 20 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor 21 of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of 22 unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an 23 action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 24 factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly 25 outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 26 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 27 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 28 court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 1 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 2 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 3 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that 4 “the persuasive force of” earlier Ninth Circuit cases that “implicitly accepted 5 pursuit of less drastic alternatives prior to disobedience of the court’s order as 6 satisfying this element[,]” i.e., like the “initial granting of leave to amend coupled 7 with the warning of dismissal for failure to comply[,]” have been “eroded” by 8 Yourish). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 9 dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” 10 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this court 11 cannot operate without collecting reasonable fees, and litigation cannot progress 12 without Diaz-Castro’s compliance with court orders, the only alternative is to 13 enter a second order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an 14 order is that it often only delays the inevitable and squanders the court’s finite 15 resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an 16 exception. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 17 circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 18 II. CONCLUSION 19 It is therefore ordered that Petitioner Christopher Edward Joseph 20 Honabach’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1-1) is DISMISSED 21 WITHOUT PREJUDICE based his on failure to comply with the Court’s Order 22 (ECF No. 3) or the Local Rules of Practice. 23 It is further ordered that Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability, 24 as jurists of reason would not find dismissal of the petition for the reasons stated 25 herein to be debatable or wrong. 26 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court is instructed to add Nevada 27 Attorney General Aaron D. Ford as counsel for Respondents. No response is 28 required from Respondents other than to respond to any orders of a reviewing 1 || court. 2 It is further ordered that pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 3 || 2254 Cases, the Clerk of Court will file the Petition (ECF No. 1-1), direct informal 4 || electronic service upon Respondents, and provide to Respondents an electronic 5 || copy of all items previously filed in this case by regenerating the Notice of 6 || Electronic Filing to the office of the AG only. 7 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court is instructed to enter final 8 || judgment accordingly and close this case. 9 DATED THIS 15th day of July, 2025. 10 j jon 11 Awe /

12 ANNERTRAUM 43 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28