Jasper Eric Lee Jones v. Christian Pfeiffer, 2:19-cv-06341

Petitioner Jasper Eric Lee Jones filed an application in the Ninth Circuit (constructively a §2254 petition) in April 2019; the Ninth Circuit transferred the filing to the district court.
The district court dismissed the original Petition with leave to amend and ordered Jones to file a First Amended Petition (FAP) that pleaded supporting facts by August 27, 2019.
The court later issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) on September 12, 2019, directing Jones to file the FAP and either an in forma pauperis (IFP) application or pay the $5.00 filing fee by October 1, 2019.
Jones did not respond to the dismissal order or the OSC and submitted no filings for over six months, effectively abandoning the action.
The court applied the governing dismissal-for-failure-to-prosecute standards (Rule 41(b) and Local Rule 41-1), weighed the Malone/Malone-factor test, and concluded lesser sanctions were unavailable.
The court dismissed the action in its entirety without prejudice on October 30, 2019.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should dismiss Jones's habeas petition for failure to prosecute and to comply with court orders	Jones failed to file the required FAP or IFP application and offered no response to the OSC (no active argument presented)	The court (and respondent implicitly) asserted dismissal appropriate given abandonment and two unheeded orders	Court dismissed action under Rule 41(b) and Local Rule 41-1 without prejudice after finding four of five dismissal factors supported dismissal

Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (recognizes district courts' authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute)
Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (dismissal for failure to comply with court orders)
In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2006) (sets out multi-factor test for dismissal)
Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128 (9th Cir. 1987) (establishes factors to consider before dismissal)
Valley Engineers v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 1998) (dismissal factors are non-exhaustive)
Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 1999) (public interest in expeditious resolution generally favors dismissal)
Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Danzig, 217 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2000) (presumption of prejudice from unreasonable delay)
Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 1447 (9th Cir. 1994) (delay can justify dismissal without specific showing of prejudice)
Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 2002) (public policy favors disposition on merits but does not control where other factors support dismissal)
Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381 (9th Cir. 1996) (court discretion to dismiss with or without prejudice)