District Court, D. Montana, 2021

Smith v. Guyer

District Court, D. Montana · Decided November 5, 2021

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA HELENA DIVISION JACOB SMITH, Cause No. CV 21-14-H-SEH Petitioner, ORDER VS. LYNN GUYER; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, I Respondents.

On February 11, 2021, Petitioner Jacob Smith (“Smith”) filed a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody.!

On July 22, 2021, he was ordered to show cause as to why his petition should not be dismissed as time-barred and procedurally defaulted.? Three extensions of time in which to respond have been granted.? On October 22, 2021, Smith was advised that he had until 4:45 p.m. October 29, 2021, to file his response or his case would be dismissed.* Smith has not filed a response. i Doc. 1.

2 Doc. 6. 3 See Docs. 8, 10 & 12. * Doc. 12 at 2. - Smith has failed to comply with the Court’s Order.> Relevant factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions,” have been weighed.® None warrant application here. The case is dismissed. + No basis to encourage further proceedings exists.’ A certificate of appealability is denied.’

ORDERED: 1. Smith’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody’ is DISMISSED.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter, by separate document, a judgment in favor of Respondents and against Petitioner.

3. Acertificate of appealability is DENIED.

DATED this Ss day of November, sn Sam E. Haddon United States District Judge See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F. 3d 639, 641-45 (9th Cir. 2002). ° Carey v. King, 856 F. 2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Pagtalunan, 291 F. 3d 642.

1 Miller-El y. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). ® 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Rule 11(a), Rules governing § 2254 Proceedings. * Doe. 1, 2.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.