Smith v. Salmonsen

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA HELENA DIVISION JACOB SMITH, Cause No. CV 21-70-H-SEH Petitioner, ORDER Vs. JIM SALMONSEN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondents.

On September 1, 2021, Petitioner Jacob Smith (“Smith”) filed a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody.! On September 27, 2021, he was ordered to show cause as to why his petition should not be dismissed as time-barred and procedurally defaulted. An extension of time to October 29, 2021, in which to respond was granted.? In companion cases, Smith has been granted multiple extensions in which to respond.‘

On October 22, 2021, Smith was accorded until 4:45 p.m. October 29, 2021, to file a response or the case would be dismissed.*> Smith did not respond as ordered.

Doc. 1. ¢ Doc. 4. 3 See Doc. 6. 4 See Smith v. Guyer et al., Cause No. CV-21-14-H-SEH & Smith v. Salmonsen et al., Cause No. CV-21-40-H-SEH. > Doc. 6.

* Smith has failed to comply with the Court’s Order.® Relevant factors: “(1) the > public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to

manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions” have been weighed.’ None warrant application here. The case is dismissed. 1 No basis to encourage further proceedings exists.* A certificate of appealability is denied.° i} ORDERED:

3 1. Smith’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody'® is DISMISSED. 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter, by separate document, a judgment in favor of Respondents and against Petitioner. 3.

‘ Ly E. Haddon United States District Judge

6 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F, 3d 639, 641-45 (9th Cir. 2002). Carey v. King, 856 F. 2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Pagtalunan, 291 F. 3d 642. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). ? 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Rule 11(a), Rules governing § 2254 Proceedings. 0 Doe. 1. -2-