(PC) Hicks v. King, 1:14-cv-01765

Hicks is a civil detainee proceeding pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Eastern District of California.
On March 10, 2015, Hicks's complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim and he was ordered to file a habeas petition or a notice of voluntary dismissal within 30 days.
The 30-day deadline passed without Hicks filing a habeas petition, a notice of voluntary dismissal, or seeking an extension.
Local Rule 110 authorizes sanctions for noncompliance with court orders, and courts may dismiss for failure to prosecute, failure to obey orders, or noncompliance with local rules.
The recommendation was that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute, with objections due within 14 days.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the action should be dismissed for failure to prosecute and to obey a court order.	Not stated in the recommendation.	Court may dismiss for failure to prosecute and noncompliance with orders per Rule 110.	Dismissal without prejudice recommended.

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule)
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment)
Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address)
Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order)
Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules)
Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1986) (sanctions and dismissal; docket management)
Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522 (9th Cir. 1976) (presumption of injury from delay in prosecution)