Johnson v. Daniels

204 F. App'x 585
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided October 23, 2006·No. Nos. 05-35374 to 05-35378·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

In consolidated cases, Larry Johnson appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing five 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petitions for failure to comply with a court order, failure to prosecute, and mootness. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm the district court.

We conclude that Johnson’s petitions are not moot because, at the time of the district court’s order, he was on home confinement and, in any event, he is now on supervised release. See Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758, 761 (9th Cir. 2002).

However, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petitions. It is uncontested that, in its November order, the district court instructed Johnson to file a consolidated habeas petition by March 1, 2005. The record shows that Johnson did not comply with the district court’s order. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing his petitions. See James v. Madison St. Jail, 122 F.3d 27, 27 n. 1 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Johnson v. Daniels, 204 F. App'x 585 (9th Cir. 2006).

204 F. App'x 585 (Johnson v. Daniels) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Alejandro Matus-Leva v. United States
287 F.3d 758 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
James v. Madison Street Jail
122 F.3d 27 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)