Hector Sanchez v. Heidi M. Lackner
2:15-cv-05906
| C.D. Cal. | Feb 21, 2018Background
- Petitioner Hector Sanchez, a pro se California state prisoner, filed a First Amended Petition (FAP) under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging custody-related relief.
- Respondent moved to dismiss the FAP as moot, asserting Sanchez had been released and sought only an earlier release date rather than collateral attack on his conviction.
- Sanchez did not address the mootness argument in his Traverse and failed to respond to a court order to show cause why the FAP should not be dismissed as moot and whether he remained in custody.
- The court warned that failure to respond could lead to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and local rules.
- The magistrate judge and district court applied the Ninth Circuit dismissal factors for failure to prosecute and failure to obey court orders and concluded dismissal was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of petition | Sanchez did not contest mootness in filings or show-cause response | Respondent: Petitioner released; claim seeks earlier release date only, so moot | Court treated FAP as effectively moot and prompted dismissal proceedings |
| Failure to prosecute / obey orders | Sanchez did not respond to show-cause order or indicate intent to prosecute | Respondent relied on Sanchez’s noncompliance and mootness to support dismissal | Court dismissed FAP for failure to prosecute and disobeying orders |
| Appropriateness of dismissal sanction | Sanchez provided no argument for lesser sanctions | Respondent argued dismissal appropriate given nonresponse and impracticality of lesser sanctions | Court found lesser sanctions infeasible and dismissal warranted |
| Application of Ninth Circuit factors | No operative response from Sanchez contesting factors | Respondent emphasized docket management and prejudice from delay | Court applied Carey factors and concluded all weighed in favor of dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (courts have inherent authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute)
- Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 2002) (factors for dismissal of pro se prisoner actions)
- Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988) (setting out the five-factor test for dismissal for failure to prosecute)
- Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 1999) (public interest in expeditious litigation favors dismissal)
- In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447 (9th Cir. 1994) (presumption of prejudice from delay in prosecution)
- Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522 (9th Cir. 1976) (failure to prosecute justifies dismissal even without actual prejudice)
- Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648 (9th Cir. 1991) (party bears responsibility to move case toward disposition)
- Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986) (court must explore meaningful alternatives but need not exhaust all lesser sanctions)
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (warning a party that noncompliance will lead to dismissal can satisfy consideration of alternatives)