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

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

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 3 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Link v. Wabash Railroad Co.,

(1962); see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2002). ° Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988); see also Pagtalunan,

. 1 Miller-El y. Cockrell,

(2003) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)). ®

(c)(2); Rule 11(a), Rules governing § 2254 Proceedings. * Doe. 1, 2.