IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
HELENA DIVISION
JACOB SMITH, Cause No. CV 21-70-H-SEH
Petitioner,
ORDER
Vs.
JIM SALMONSEN; ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
MONTANA,
Respondents.
On September 1, 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 September 27, 2021, he was ordered to show cause as to why his petition
should not be dismissed as time-barred and procedurally defaulted. An extension
of time to October 29, 2021, in which to respond was granted.? In companion
cases, Smith has been granted multiple extensions in which to respond.‘
On October 22, 2021, Smith was accorded until 4:45 p.m. October 29, 2021, to
file a response or the case would be dismissed.*> Smith did not respond as ordered.
Doc. 1.
¢ Doc. 4.
3 See Doc. 6.
4 See Smith v. Guyer et al., Cause No. CV-21-14-H-SEH & Smith v. Salmonsen et al., Cause No.
CV-21-40-H-SEH.
> Doc. 6.
* 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.
1 No basis to encourage further proceedings exists.* A certificate of appealability
is denied.°
i} ORDERED:
3 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.
DATED this sth, of November, 2021.
‘ Ly E. Haddon
United States District Judge
6 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.
Miller-El v. 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.
0 Doe. 1.
-2-
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.