1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DEVIN WADE, ) Case No. CV 25-2609-MWF (JPR) 11 ) Petitioner, ) 12 ) ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS PETITION v. ) FOR FAILURE TO FOLLOW COURT ORDER 13 ) AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE UNITED STATES COURT OF THE ) 14 9TH DISTRICT, ) ) 15 Respondent. ) 16 17 On February 7, 2025, Petitioner filed in the Ninth Circuit 18 Court of Appeals a habeas petition, seemingly challenging a state 19 conviction. (See Pet., ECF No. 1 at 2.) That court transferred 20 the Petition here on March 3. (Order, ECF No. 2.) On March 26, 21 the Magistrate Judge dismissed the Petition with leave to amend 22 because Petitioner had not used the required Central District of 23 California habeas form and because the Petition lacked the 24 necessary information to adequately screen it. (See Order, ECF 25 No. 5.) The Magistrate Judge gave Petitioner 30 days to amend 26 and warned that if he failed to timely comply with the order, 27 “his Petition may be dismissed.” (Id.) Petitioner never 28 1 1 responded to the Magistrate Judge’s order.1 2 Courts may dismiss lawsuits that are not diligently 3 prosecuted or as to which the party who filed suit failed to 4 comply with a court order. Link v. Wabash R.R.,

, 5 629-30 (1962); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) 6 (per curiam). In determining whether to dismiss a pro se 7 petitioner’s action for failure to prosecute or failure to comply 8 with a court order, a court must consider (1) the public’s 9 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the court’s 10 need to manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to the other 11 party, (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 12 their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. 13 Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2002). 14 Unreasonable delay creates a rebuttable presumption of prejudice 15 to the opposing party that can be overcome only with an 16 affirmative showing of just cause by the petitioner. In re 17 Eisen,

(9th Cir. 1994). 18 Here, the first, second, third, and fifth factors militate 19 for dismissal. Petitioner has a history of filing frivolous 20 civil suits and habeas petitions, and on September 24, 2024, the 21 Court declared him a vexatious litigant and prohibited him from 22 filing any pro se petition, complaint, or IFP application “unless 23 he has previously been granted leave to file the document by a 24 Judge of this Court.” In re Devin Kyle Wade Cases, Case No. EDCV 25 26 1 The Magistrate Judge ordered the Clerk to “send Petitioner a copy of the Central District of California habeas form and any 27 related forms,” and the Order and forms were mailed to Petitioner at his address of record. (Order, ECF No. 5.) They have not been 28 returned as undeliverable, so Petitioner presumably received them. 2 1 24-1640-MWF (JPR),

(C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2024). 2 The Court granted him leave to file this case only to safeguard 3 his rights if he in good faith intended to challenge a state- 4 court conviction. But he has once again shown himself to be 5 simply wasting the Court’s time and resources. 6 Indeed, the Court found Petitioner to be a vexatious 7 litigant based in part on his history of failing to respond to 8 court orders. See R. & R., Wade v. Price, 5:24-cv-1664-MWF-JPR 9 (C.D. Cal. filed Aug. 28, 2024), ECF No. 6 at 8 (noting that 12 10 of over 100 actions Petitioner had initiated in Central District 11 since 2019 were dismissed without prejudice for “failure to file 12 a complete request to proceed in forma pauperis, pay the filing 13 fee, or respond to a court order”). Petitioner’s vexatious 14 filings and repeated disregard for court orders frustrate the 15 public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation and 16 the Court’s ability to manage its docket. 17 Further, Petitioner has not rebutted the presumption of 18 prejudice to Respondent caused by his unreasonable delay, a delay 19 he has inflicted on numerous defendants and respondents since 20 2019.

Finally, there does not appear to be any less drastic 21 sanction the Court can take, as Petitioner has ceased 22 communicating with it and has failed to respond to a Court order, 23 much like he has done in prior cases. The Court cannot simply 24 leave this case hanging on its docket until he decides to 25 participate. Moreover, dismissal without prejudice is a less 26 drastic sanction than with prejudice, which is authorized when a 27 petitioner has failed to diligently prosecute a habeas petition. 28 See Pagtalunan,

(affirming dismissal of habeas 3 1 ||} petition with prejudice for failure to prosecute). Although the fourth factor weighs against dismissal — as it always does — the 3 |] other factors together outweigh the public’s interest in disposing of the case on its merits. 5 Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice for 6 || failure to follow a Court order and failure tu prusecute. DATED: May 6, 2025 8 MICHAEL /W. F FERALD U.S. DISTRICT DGE 9 10 Presented by: 11 g Wf 12 \Jsean Rosenblut U.S. Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28