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.

Carroll v. State

United States District Court, C.D. California

July 13, 2015

TREMAINE DEON CARROLL, Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

STEPHEN V. WILSON, District Judge.

On January 20, 2015, petitioner signed a document entitled "Petition for Resentencing Under Prop. 47, Vargas, ' Prop. 36..." which was formally filed on February 2, 2015 as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody in the instant action. On February 12, 2015, petitioner signed a similar document which was formally filed on February 20, 2015 as a Supplement to the Petition. Such filings shall collectively be referred to as the "Petition." Based on its contents, the Court construes the Petition to challenge the State's refusal to resentence him based on (1) Proposition 36;[1] (2) Proposition 47;[2] (3) People v. Vargas, 59 Cal.4th 635 (2014);[3] and (4) People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (2014).[4]

As the Petition was deficient in multiple respects, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued an order advising petitioner of such deficiencies, ordering him to show cause by not later than April 20, 2015, why the Petition should not be dismissed based thereon, and affording him an opportunity to file a first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus curing such deficiencies by the foregoing deadline ("Order to Show Cause").[5] The Order to Show Cause expressly cautioned petitioner that the failure timely to respond thereto may result in the dismissal of the Petition based upon the deficiencies identified therein, and/or the dismissal of this action based upon petitioner's failure to prosecute and/or petitioner's failure to comply with the Order to Show Cause.

Although the deadline to respond to the Order to Show Cause has now expired, petitioner has not responded thereto. Nor has petitioner filed a first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, or otherwise communicated with the Court since before the issuance of the Order to Show Cause.

It is well-established that district courts have authority to dismiss an action because of the failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992). In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders, a district court must consider several 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 defendants/respondents; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994) (failure to prosecute); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (failure to comply with court orders).

In light of petitioner's failure to comply with or to respond to the Order to Show Cause, his failure to cure the deficiencies in the Petition after having been given an opportunity to do so, and his corresponding failure to prosecute, and after weighing each of the above-referenced factors, this Court concludes that dismissal of the Petition and this action without prejudice is appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.