Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Henderson v. Sherman, CV 18-7248-MWF(E). (2019)

Court: District Court, C.D. California Number: infdco20190220791 Visitors: 8
Filed: Feb. 15, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 15, 2019
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, all of the records herein and the attached Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. The Court accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying and dismissing the Petition without prejudice. IT IS FURTH
More

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, all of the records herein and the attached Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. The Court accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying and dismissing the Petition without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and the Judgment herein on Petitioner and counsel for Respondent.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald, 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

On August 17, 2018, Petitioner filed an unverified "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody." On August 20, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued an "Order Requiring Answer to Petition, etc.," ordering Respondent to file an Answer to the Petition and also providing that Petitioner may file a Reply to the Answer within fifteen (15) days of the filing of the Answer.

On November 9, 2018, Respondent filed an Answer. Therein, Respondent argued, inter alia, that the Petition should be dismissed because the Petition is unverified. See Rule 2(c)(5), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.

By Minute Order filed November 15, 2018, the Magistrate Judge ordered Petitioner to file a document signed by Petitioner under penalty of perjury verifying the contents of the Petition. The Magistrate Judge ordered that such a document be filed on or before November 26, 2018. The Magistrate Judge warned Petitioner that failure timely to comply with the November 15, 2018 Order could result in the denial and dismissal of the Petition.

As of the date of this Report and Recommendation, Petitioner has not filed any document signed by Petitioner under penalty of perjury verifying the contents of the Petition. Petitioner also has not filed a Reply to the Answer and has not otherwise communicated with the Court since the filing of the unverified Petition.

DISCUSSION

The Petition should be denied and dismissed without prejudice under the Court's inherent power to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases by dismissing actions for failure to prosecute. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (district court may dismiss unverified petition). The Court has considered the factors recited in Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-62 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992), and has concluded that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. In particular, any less drastic alternative would not be effective under the circumstances of this case.

RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons discussed above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an order: (1) accepting and adopting this Report and Recommendation; and (2) 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.

If the District Judge enters judgment adverse to Petitioner, the District Judge will, at the same time, issue or deny a certificate of appealability. Within twenty (20) days of the filing of this Report and Recommendation, the parties may file written arguments regarding whether a certificate of appealability should issue.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer