IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA HELENA DIVISION JACOB SMITH, Cause No. CV 21-40-H-SEH Petitioner, ORDER vs. JAMES SALMONSEN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, : Respondents.

On May 5, 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.

Doc. 1. Doc. 4. 3 See Docs. 6, 8 & 10. 4 Doc. 10 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. i 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. Accertificate of appealability is DENIED. #4 DATED this S ~day of November,

Sam E. Haddon United States District Judge } 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,

. 7 Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)). 8

(c)(2); Rule 11(a), Rules governing § 2254 Proceedings. Doe. 1. 9.