# Opinion

> District Court, E.D. California · February 23, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11374637

## Case

- **Full name:** Lonnie Charles Brown v. Corona, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** February 23, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11374637

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 LONNIE CHARLES BROWN, Case No.: 1:25-cv-01340-CDB
12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING
WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
13 v. DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE
TO RESPOND TO THE FIRST SCREENING
14 CORONA, et al., ORDER

15 Defendants. 14-DAY RESPONSE DEADLINE

16

17
18 Plaintiff Lonnie Charles Brown is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
19 rights action.
20 I. INTRODUCTION
21 On January 26, 2026, this Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 7.) The Court
22 found Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Id. at 5-9.) As a result,
23 Plaintiff was ordered to file a first amended complaint, or, alternatively, to file a notice of
24 voluntary dismissal, within 21 days. (Id. at 9-10.)
25 Despite the passage of more than 21 days, plus time for mailing, Plaintiff has failed to
26 respond to the Court’s screening order in any way.
27 //
1 II. DISCUSSION
2 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide,
3 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may
4 be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule
5 or within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power
6 to control their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal
7 of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).
8 A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court
9 order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.
10 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S.
11 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court
12 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to
13 prosecute and to comply with local rules).
14 In the screening order, the Court found Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable
15 claim against any named defendant. Therefore, Plaintiff was directed to file a first amended
16 complaint, curing the deficiencies identified in the screening order, or to file a notice of voluntary
17 dismissal, within 21 days. More than 21 days, plus time for mailing, have passed, yet Plaintiff has
18 failed to take any action.
19 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
20 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 14 days of
21 the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply
22 with the Court’s screening order. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file either a
23 first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal.
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
1 Any failure by Plaintiff to comply with this Order to Show Cause will result in a
2 | recommendation that this action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court
3 | orders and failure to prosecute.
4 | ITIS SO ORDERED.
> Dated: _ February 23, 2026 | bn
6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11374637. Public record. Not legal advice.