holding that district court did not abuse its discretion when dismissing defendant’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition with prejudice because defendant failed to comply with the court’s order giving him leave to amend his petition by submitting it on the court’s approved form and naming the proper respondents
How later courts described this case
- holding that district court did not abuse its discretion when dismissing defendant’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition with prejudice because defendant failed to comply with the court’s order giving him leave to amend his petition by submitting it on the court’s approved form and naming the proper respondents
- holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in 15 dismissing an action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order when the 16 district court found that plaintiff’s objections to findings and recommendations “offered no 17 reasonable excuse” for delay
- finding that 12 defendants were prejudiced by plaintiff’s failure to comply with court order to submit pleadings 13 within designated time period because “[u]nnecessary delay inherently increases the risk that 14 witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale”
- finding this factor weighed in favor of dismissal where plaintiff offered “no clear 17 explanations” and noting “[u]nnecessary delay inherently increases the risk that witnesses’ 18 memories will fade and evidence will become stale.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
TROTT, Circuit Judge
Concurring:
I write separately only to assure our Chief Judge that we in the majority are not “preoccupied” with the standard of *644 review that governs the outcome of this appeal. Additionally, we have not “lost sight” of anything, much less our responsibility as judges. We simply see this case differently at a time when the need of the district court in the Central District of California to manage its huge caseload has never been greater. With as many as six vacancies gone unattended by the political branches of our government for far too long, our trial courts do not have time to waste on multiple failures by aspiring litigants to follow the rales and requirements of our courts. Here, Pagtalunan is responsible for inexcusable delay, failure to comply with a court order, and failure to prosecute. In my view, the weight of the docket-managing factor depends upon the size and load of the docket, and those in the best position to know what that is are our beleaguered trial judges. That factor weighs heavily in this case. Accordingly, and with all respect to our esteemed Chief Judge, I cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion; and I concur in Judge Rawlinson’s opinion.