United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
FREDERICK F. MUMM United States Magistrate Judge.
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.)
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.)
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,
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.
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.
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).
Five Carey Factors Warrant Dismissal
Public's Interest in the Expeditious Resolution of
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
Court's Need to Manage Its Docket
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 ...