Johnson v. Daniels
This text of 204 F. App'x 585 (Johnson v. Daniels) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
204 F. App'x 585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-daniels-ca9-2006.