Pastor v. Martinez
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Barry T. Moskowitz (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se state prisoner's habeas corpus petition where the petitioner failed to comply with court orders to choose a specific procedural option to avoid dismissal. The court directed the entry of a final judgment of dismissal without prejudice and ordered the case closed.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of habeas petition without prejudice“Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of dismissal without prejudice in accordance with the Court’s February 11, 2022, Order and to close the case.” | agree with court The petitioner was given multiple opportunities and specific deadlines to comply with the court's directive to choose one of four options. The court extended the deadline to April 4, 2022, specifically citing potential law library inaccessibility due to the pandemic. The petitioner failed to respond by the final deadline. Dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders is a standard procedural remedy. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound. It documents a clear history of non-compliance by the petitioner despite multiple warnings and an extended deadline. The citation to Rose v. Lundy is somewhat tangential to the specific procedural default (failure to choose an option) but the underlying authority for dismissal for failure to prosecute is well-established. The reasoning is sufficient to support the dismissal.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCO A. PASTOR, Case No.: 21cv1810 BTM (JLB)
12 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING ENTRY OF 13 v. FINAL JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND 14 LOUIS A. MARTINEZ, Warden, CLOSING CASE 15 Respondent. 16 17 On October 22, 2021, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition 18 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 along with a motion to proceed 19 in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1-2.) In a November 5, 2021, Order, the Court denied 20 Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, issued an order to show cause requiring 21 action, and directed that in order to avoid dismissal of his habeas action, Petitioner must, 22 no later than January 4, 2022, both: (1) pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit adequate proof 23 of his inability to pay the filing fee and (2) choose one of the four options outlined in that 24 order. (ECF No. 3.) 25 On December 1, 2021, Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee and on December 16, 26 2021, Petitioner filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, accompanied by what 27 appeared to be a blank copy of this district’s 28 U.S.C. section 2254 habeas form. (ECF 28 No. 5-6.) On December 20, 2021, the Court issued an order denying the motion to proceed 1 ||in forma pauperis as moot and reminding Petitioner that while the filing fee requirement 2 || had now been satisfied in the instant case, to avoid dismissal of his habeas action, Petitioner 3 ||must, on or before January 4, 2022, choose one of the four options outlined in the Court’s 4 || November 5, 2021, Order, and cautioning Petitioner that if he failed to respond, the petition 5 || would be dismissed without prejudice. (See ECF No. 6.) 6 On February 11, 2022, the Court issued an order to show cause why the instant 7 || habeas action should not be dismissed for failure to choose an option, and gave Petitioner 8 |/a final deadline of April 4, 2022 to choose an option, “in view of the potentiality that law 9 || library inaccessibility due to Covid-19 has contributed to delays in Petitioner responding 10 || to the portion of the Court’s order requiring him to choose one of the four outlined options 11 e.g. ECF No. 1 at 5), and given Petitioner has responded in part to the Court’s 12 || November 5, 2021, Order by paying the filing fee (see ECF No. 5).” (ECF No. 8 at 2.) 13 It is now past the April 4, 2022, deadline and Petitioner has not responded to the 14 || Court’s orders requiring him to choose an option to avoid dismissal. (See ECF Nos. 3, 4, 15 Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of dismissal 16 || without prejudice in accordance with the Court’s February 11, 2022, Order and to close the 17 ||case. (See ECF No. 8 at 2, citing Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982).) 18 || IT ISSO ORDERED. 19 ||Dated: April 18, 2022 20 ang Te Meche Honorable Barry Ted Moskov 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28