Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Christopher Abel Ruiz v. David Long

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


November 13, 2012

CHRISTOPHER ABEL RUIZ,
PETITIONER,
v.
DAVID LONG,
RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Charles F. Eick United States Magistrate Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Otis D. Wright, II, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

PROCEEDINGS

Petitioner filed a "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody" and a "Motion for Stay and Abeyance, etc." on May 25, 2012. Respondent filed a "Response to Motion for Stay and Abeyance and Request for Reconsideration of Order Requiring Respondent File an Answer to the Petition" ("the Response") on August 22, 2012. Petitioner failed to file a Reply to the Response.

On August 31, 2012, the Magistrate Judge ordered Petitioner to file a Reply to the Response within thirty (30) days of August 31, 2012. The Magistrate Judge's Order cautioned that "[f]ailure timely to file a Reply may result in dismissal of the Petition." Nevertheless, Petitioner again failed to file a timely Reply.

On October 2, 2012, the Magistrate Judge once again ordered Petitioner to file a Reply to the Response, this time setting the deadline at twenty (20) days from October 2, 2012. The Magistrate Judge's Order again cautioned that "[f]ailure timely to file a Reply may result in dismissal of the Petition." Nevertheless, Petitioner again failed to file a timely Reply.

DISCUSSION

The Petition should be denied and dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Petitioner failed to file a timely Reply, despite two Court Orders that he do so. The Court has inherent power to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases by dismissing actions for failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

RECOMMENDATION

For all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an Order: (1) accepting and adopting this Report and Recommendation; and (2) directing that Judgment be entered denying and dismissing the Petition without prejudice.

NOTICE

Reports and Recommendations are not appealable to the Court of Appeals, but may be subject to the right of any party to file objections as provided in the Local Rules Governing the Duties of Magistrate Judges and review by the District Judge whose initials appear in the docket number. No notice of appeal pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should be filed until entry of the judgment of the District Court.

20121113

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.