Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Ramirez v. Long

United States District Court, C.D. California

April 19, 2017

RENE GUZMAN RAMIREZ, Petitioner,
v.
DAVID LONG, Warden, C.C.C.F., Respondent.

          ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

          FREDERICK F. MUMM United States Magistrate Judge.

         PROCEEDINGS

         On or about May 24, 2016, petitioner Rene Guzman Ramirez (“petitioner”), a California inmate proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (the “petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. 1.)

         After initially reviewing the petition, on May 27, 2016, the Court issued its standard Order Requiring Return to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the “case management order”). (Dkt. 4.) Therein, the Court ordered that, if respondent elected to file a return to the petition, petitioner was to file a reply to the return within thirty days after service thereof. (Id. at 3.) Additionally, the Order expressly required petitioner to apprise the Court of any address changes and warned that a failure to do so would result in a dismissal of the petition for failure to prosecute. (Id. at 4.)

         On July 5, 2016, petitioner informed the Court that he had been granted early parole under California Assembly Bill 109, Cal. Stats. 2011, ch. 15. (Dkt. 8.) Petitioner advised the Court that, as a result, he would be released from prison and into the custody of Los Angeles County Probation Department on July 6, 2016. Furthermore, petitioner stated that his new address would be 334 1/4 W. 87th St., Los Angeles, CA 90003.

         After several extensions of time, respondent filed a return to the petition on September 2, 2016. (Dkt. 13.) Accordingly, petitioner's reply was due on or before October 3, 2016. To date, petitioner has not filed a reply, sought an extension of time in which to do so, or otherwise communicated with the Court.

         Finally, the Court notes that each piece of mail it has attempted to deliver to plaintiff since July 22, 2016, has been returned as undeliverable. (See Dkts. 11, 18-20.) Thus, it appears that petitioner has failed to keep the Court apprised of his correct address.

         DISCUSSION

         The Court has inherent power to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases by dismissing actions for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with Court orders. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (finding that “[t]he power to [dismiss for failure to prosecute] is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of District Courts”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). In Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988), the Ninth Circuit cited the following factors as relevant to the Court's determination whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute: “(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.” See Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. The same factors are evaluated when determining whether to dismiss an action based on a party's failure to comply with a Court order. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992).

         The Five Carey Factors Warrant Dismissal

         1. Public's Interest in the Expeditious Resolution of Litigation

         “The public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). Furthermore, in addition to the public's inherent interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation, plaintiff's inactivity and failure to comply with the Court's case management order further warrant dismissal. Indeed, during the approximately ten months since petitioner was released from prison, he has failed to provide the Court with his current address. Without petitioner's address, the Court cannot effectively grant petitioner any relief, even if justified, because the Court cannot locate petitioner.

         2. The Court's Need to Manage Its Docket

         District courts are permitted to control their dockets “without being subject to endless non-compliance with case management orders.” In rePhenylpropanolamine Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1227 (9th Cir. 2006). “The trial judge is in the best position to determine whether the delay in a particular case interferes with docket ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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