Smith v. Salmonsen

Docket 6:21-cv-00040

Filed
2021-05-21
Terminated
2021-11-05
Case type
cv

Outcome

No sourced outcome is recorded. A termination date alone does not establish who prevailed.

Parties and representation

      Party and firm records are not available for this case.

      Panel

        No sourced panel votes are recorded.

        Opinions and documents

        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 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. 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 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. 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., 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. 7 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 8 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Rule 11(a), Rules governing § 2254 Proceedings. Doe. 1. 9.

        Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.