Jose G. Villalta v. B. Cates

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: March 25, 2022
• Docket: 8:21-cv-01624
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 8:21-cv-01624-MCS-ADS Document 8 Filed 03/25/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:20

1 JS-6 2

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 JOSE G. VILLALTA, Case No. 8:21-01624-MCS (ADS)

11 Petitioner, ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING 12 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 13 B. CATES,

14 Respondent.

15 16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 Before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State 18 Custody (“Petition”) filed by Petitioner Jose G. Villalta (“Petitioner”). (Dkt. No. 1.) 19 On January 6, 2022, the Court issued an Order Regarding Screening of Petition (“OSP”) 20 because Petitioner failed to pay the requiring filing fee or submit a completed IFP 21 request and because the Petition appears to be unexhausted and untimely. (Dkt. No. 5.) 22 Although Petitioner did pay the filing fee on January 28, 2022, he did not file a response 23 to the substantive issues raised by the OSP by the February 7, 2022 deadline. (Id.) As a 24 result, on February 23, 2022, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”), Case 8:21-cv-01624-MCS-ADS Document 8 Filed 03/25/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:21

1 ordering Petitioner to show cause by March 9, 2022 why this action should not be 2 dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Dkt. No. 7.) As of the date of this Order, Petitioner 3 has not filed a response to the OSC or OSP. 4 II. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS 5 Petitioner has failed to prosecute this habeas petition and comply with court 6 orders. Petitioner did not respond to two court orders. The February 23, 2022 OSC

7 expressly cautioned Petitioner that failure to respond would result in a recommendation 8 that the action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure to obey court orders 9 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Id.) 10 Petitioner’s repeated failure to respond despite court orders to do so reflects a 11 lack of prosecution of the case. In Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988), the 12 Ninth Circuit cited the following factors as relevant to the Court’s determination of 13 whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute: “(1) the public’s interest in 14 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the 15 risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 16 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Id. at 1440. 17 Upon consideration of the five Carey factors, the Court finds that Petitioner’s

18 failure to prosecute his case and failure to comply with the Court’s orders warrant 19 dismissal. The first two Carey factors—the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving 20 this litigation and the Court's interest in managing the docket—weigh in favor of 21 dismissal. The Court cannot hold this case in abeyance indefinitely awaiting Petitioner’s 22 response to the Court’s directive. The third factor—risk of prejudice to Respondent— 23 also weighs in favor of dismissal since a presumption of injury arises from the 24 occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, Inc.,

2 ase 8:21-cv-01624-MCS-ADS Document 8 Filed 03/25/22 Page 3o0f3 Page ID#:22

1 F.2d 522, 524 (oth Cir. 1976) (stating that the “law presumes injury from 2 □□ unreasonable delay”). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases 3 || on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal. 4 Finally, Petitioner has already been cautioned of the consequences of his failure 5, || to prosecute and ordered to show cause why the action should not be dismissed. 6 || Petitioner has been afforded the opportunity to do so yet has not responded. No 7 || sanction lesser than dismissal is feasible here. Thus, dismissal of this action is 8 || warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 9 || III. CONCLUSION 10 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action be summarily dismissed without 11 || prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. : Hak Lk, 14 || Dated: March 25, 2022 ak ° COndA _—____ THE HONORABLE MARK C. SCARSI 15 United States District Judge 16 || Presented by: 17 /s/ Autumn D. Spaeth THE HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH 18 || United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24