1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 Case No. CV 19-5540 MWF (MRW) 13 KATIE LYNN HAWN, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 14 Petitioner, WITH PREJUDICE 15 v. FRCP 41 16 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 17 Respondent. 18

19 The Court dismisses this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 20 Procedure 41 for failure to prosecute. 21 * * * 22 1. This is a habeas action involving a state criminal judgment 23 case. A state jury convicted Petitioner of battery and resisting arrest 24 following an altercation at Hearst Castle. Petitioner filed a habeas petition 25 in this Court under

challenging that conviction. 26 2. Magistrate Judge Wilner screened the petition pursuant to 27 local practice and Habeas Rule 4. Judge Wilner preliminarily concluded 28 1 that the habeas petition contained unexhausted claims and did not clearly 2 present cognizable claims for federal habeas relief. (Docket # 3.) 3 Judge Wilner ordered Petitioner to respond with information regarding 4 how she intended to proceed with her unexhausted claims. The order also 5 required Petitioner to submit a supplemental statement explaining the 6 nature of the federal constitutional claims in her petition. 7 3. Judge Wilner expressly advised Petitioner that failure to 8 respond to the order would result in a recommendation under Rule 41 that 9 the matter be dismissed for failure to prosecute or obey court orders. The 10 order cited the Ninth Circuit’s recent opinion (Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. 11 Lichtenegger,

(9th Cir. 2019)) regarding dismissal of civil 12 actions. 13 4. Petitioner did not respond to the screening order. 14 Judge Wilner then issued an order to show cause why the action should not 15 be dismissed for failure to respond to the original screening order. (Docket 16 # 5.) Petitioner did not respond to the OSC by the deadline that 17 Judge Wilner set. Notably, Petitioner has not filed any documents with the 18 Court since initiating the case. 19 * * * 20 5. Rule 41(b) provides that if a plaintiff “fails to prosecute or to 21 comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss 22 the action or any claim against it.” Dismissal also may be ordered by the 23 Court. Link v. Wabash R.R.,

(1962). 24 6. Rule 41(b) applies when a court “mandate[s]” a specific action 25 and “indicate[s] that failure to do so would result in dismissal” under the 26 rule. Applied Underwriters,

. 27 28 1 i Dismissal of a civil action under Rule 41 may be appropriate to 2 | advance the public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation, the 3 | court’s need to manage its docket, and to avoid the risk of prejudice to 4 | defendants. Omstead v. Dell, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2010). 5 | Additionally, a court should consider the public policy favoring disposition 6 of cases on their merits and the availability of less drastic alternatives in 7 | its evaluation. Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988). 8 8. In the present action, dismissal is appropriate. Plaintiff has 9 | not participated in the action since its commencement. She has not 10 responded to Judge Wilner’s screening order or the order to show cause. 11 The Court, the defense, and the public therefore have a legitimate interest 12 | in terminating this action. Omstead,

. 13 5. Furthermore, because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant who has not 14 | responded to the Court’s orders, no sanction short of dismissal will be 15 | effective in moving this case forward. Carey,

. The Court 16 } concludes that dismissal is appropriate under Rule 41(b). Applied 17 | Underwriters,

. 18 Therefore, the present action is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED.

21 | Dated: October 28, 2019 _, : cK 29 HON. MICHAEL W. N'RZGERALD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 924 Presented by:

26 27 | HON. MICHAELR. WILNER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE