1 JS-6

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 B JAMES BLACK, Case No. ED CV 24-544 MWF (MRW)

14 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

15 Vv. 16 | WARDEN, 17 Respondent. 18 19 The Court dismisses this action without prejudice due to the failure 90 | of a pro se litigant to comply with a court order and for failure to assert a 21 || cognizable claim. 99 kek 23 1. Petitioner James Black is an inmate at the federal prison 94 | facility in Victorville. He is currently serving a 300-month sentence based 95 || on his 2007 criminal conviction on federal bank robbery and assault 96 | charges.! 27 1! The Court draws upon the dismissal order from Petitioner’s previous 98 RW) eps action in this district. Black v. Entzel, No. CV 17-1158 MWF

1 2. His current habeas action advances a cursory claim that he has 2 | been unconstitutionally denied the ability to earn certain credits under the 3 | First Step Act. According to his amended petition, Petitioner seeks a 4 | review of his preclusion from receiving earned time credits under the FSA 5 | “on the grounds that the BOP has violated the Equal Protection Clause of 6 | the Fourteenth Amendment and is contrary to the goals and intent” of the 7 | statute. (Docket #6 at 1.) 8 3. Pursuant to

(e)(2) and local practice, 9 | Magistrate Judge Wilner screened the original petition. (Docket # 4.) The 10 | magistrate judge observed that the petition “contains no facts regarding 11 | the basis of Petitioner’s claim. It also presents no understandable legal 12 | argument as to why the statute at issue allegedly violates the Constitution. 13 | At most, Petitioner presents a conclusory assertion that he has been 14 | discriminated against. The petition contains no comprehensible 15 | explanation or theory as to why this is so.” (Id. at 1-2.) The screening 16 | order dismissed the petition with leave for Petitioner to amend his 17 | pleading. 18 A. Petitioner subsequently filed an amended petition. (Docket 19 | #6.) The amended petition contained a lengthier exposition regarding the 20 | purpose of the First Step Act. However, Petitioner failed to include any 21 | additional factual information about his individual claim. 29 23 5. If it “appears from the application that the applicant or person 24 | detained is not entitled” to habeas relief, a court may summarily dismiss a 25 | habeas action.

; see also Local Civil Rule 72-3.2 26 | (magistrate judge may submit proposed order for summary dismissal to 27 28

1 | district judge “if it plainly appears from the face of the petition [ | that the 2 | petitioner is not entitled to relief 3 6. Rule 41(b) provides that if a plaintiff “fails to prosecute or to 4 | comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss 5 | the action or any claim against it.” Dismissal also may be ordered by the 6 | Court sua sponte. Link v. Wabash R.R.,

(1962). 7 7. Dismissal of a civil action under Rule 41 may be appropriate to 8 | advance the public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation, the 9 | court’s need to manage its docket, and to avoid the risk of prejudice to 10 | defendants. Omstead v. Dell, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2010). 11 | Additionally, a court should consider the public policy favoring disposition 12 | of cases on their merits and the availability of less drastic alternatives in 13 | its evaluation. Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988). 14 kkk 15 8. Any federal pleading must contain a “short and plain 16 | statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. 17 | R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). In a habeas corpus action under Section 2241, that 18 | requires a concise presentation establishing that a prisoner is “in custody 19 | in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 20 | States.”

(c)(8). Under these broad principles, a civil 21 | complaint or habeas petition “requires a showing, rather than a blanket 22 | assertion, of entitlement to relief.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 23 | U.S. 544, 556 (2007). 24 xk 25 9. The Court concludes that dismissal of this habeas action 26 | without prejudice is appropriate. Neither of Petitioner’s proposed 27 | pleadings advances any understandable federal constitutional or statutory 28

1 | claim. Even after the magistrate judge informed Petitioner that he needed 2 | to explain the factual basis of his claim. Petitioner failed to do so. 3 | Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. Plaintiffs inability to present a colorable claim 4 | in the litigation or to follow the magistrate judge’s order demonstrates that 5 | he cannot advance the action here.? By contrast, the Court, the 6 | government, and the public have a strong interest in terminating this 7 | action. 8 10. Furthermore, because Petitioner is a pro se litigant who did not 9 | comply with the magistrate judge’s previous order and cannot establish 10 | federal court jurisdiction here, no sanction short of dismissal will be 11 | effective in moving this case forward. Carey,

. The Court 12 | finds that dismissal is appropriate under Rule 41(b). 13 11. Therefore, the present action is DISMISSED without prejudice 14 | pursuant to Rule 41. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. a = 16 [ 17 | Dated: May 9, 2024 | 18 MICHAEL W. FITZ ALD United States District Judge 19 20 Presented by: 21 22 23 | HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER oA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 | ——__ 2 Petitioner’s minimalist filings also suggest that he has not properly 27 | exhausted his claims in administrative proceedings with the BOP. Although this is not a basis for dismissing the action, it is relevant to assessing the viability of 28 | his federal case.