Opinion

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, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

13 v. FOR A FAILURE TO OBEY COURT

ORDERS AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

14 CORONA, et al.,

14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

15 Defendants.

Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge

16

17

18 Plaintiff Lonnie Charles Brown appears pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

21 On January 26, 2026, the Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 7.) Therein, the

22 undersigned found Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim against any named

23 Defendant; Plaintiff was granted leave to amend and directed to file either a first amended

24 complaint, curing the deficiencies identified, or a notice of voluntary dismissal, within 21 days.

25 (Id. at 5-10.)

26 On February 23, 2026, when more than 21 days passed without a response to the

27 screening order, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to show cause in writing (OSC) why

the action should not be dismissed for his failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute the

1 action. (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff was ordered to respond within 14 days. (Id. at 2-3.) More than 14 days

2 have passed, and Plaintiff has failed to respond to the OSC in any way.

3 II. DISCUSSION

4 Applicable Legal Standards

5 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide,

6 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may

7 be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule

8 or within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power

9 to control their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal

10 of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).

11 A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court

12 order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.

13 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S.

14 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court

15 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to

16 prosecute and to comply with local rules).

17 “In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is

18 required to weigh several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation;

19 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public

20 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

21 sanctions.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks &

22 citation omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do and are not conditions that

23 must be met for a court to act. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation,

24 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

25 Analysis

26 Here, Plaintiff has failed to file a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary

27 dismissal, as directed by the Court, or otherwise communicated with the Court. Plaintiff also has

1 no other reasonable alternatives available to address Plaintiff’s failure to obey orders and failure

2 to prosecute this action. Thus, the first and second factors — the expeditious resolution of

3 litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket — weigh in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856

4 F.2d at 1440.

5 The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal since a

6 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action.

7 See Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Here, the screening order directed

8 Plaintiff to file either a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the order, or

9 to file a notice of voluntary dismissal, within 21 days. Plaintiff has taken no action whatsoever.

10 Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the screening order, his inaction amounts to an

11 unreasonable delay in prosecuting this case resulting in a presumption of injury. Moreover,

12 Plaintiff also failed to comply with the subsequently issued OSC; he did not respond in writing,

13 nor did he alternatively file a first amended complaint. Thus, the third factor — a risk of prejudice

14 to the defendants — also weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440.

15 The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors

16 disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However,

17 “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward

18 disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction.” In re PPA, 460

19 F.3d at 1228. Plaintiff has not moved this case forward toward disposition on the merits. He has

20 failed to comply with the screening order and the OSC and has stopped communicating with the

21 Court. Therefore, the fourth factor — the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their

22 merits — also weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440.

23 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s orders or rules will

24 result in dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d

25 at 1262. Here, the First Screening Order issued January 26, 2026, expressly warned: “If Plaintiff

26 fails to timely comply with this order, the Court will recommend that this action be dismissed,

27 without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and for failure to prosecute.” (Doc. 7 at 10,

1 follows: “Any failure to comply with this Order to Show Cause will result in a recommendation

2 that this action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders and failure to

3 prosecute.” (Doc. 8 at 3, emphasis in original.) Lastly, in the First Informational Order in

4 Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil Rights Case issued October 8, 2025, Plaintiff was advised as

5 follows: “In litigating this action, the parties must comply with this Order, the Federal Rules of

6 Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”), and the Local Rules of the United States District Court,

7 Eastern District of California (“Local Rules”), as modified by this Order. Failure to so comply

8 will be grounds for imposition of sanctions which may include dismissal of the case. Local Rule

9 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).” (See Doc. 2 at 1.) That same order advised Plaintiff that “all Court

10 deadlines are strictly enforced.” (Id. at 5.) Thus, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff had adequate

11 warning that dismissal could result from his noncompliance with this Court’s orders. Thus, the

12 fifth factor — the availability of less drastic sanctions —weighs in favor of dismissal. Ferdik, 963

13 F.2d at 1262; Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440.

14 In sum, Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s orders, and in doing so, has failed

15 to prosecute this action. Based on an analysis of Plaintiff’s conduct balanced against the

16 competing equities, the undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed without

17 prejudice.

18 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

19 Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a district

20 judge to this action.

21 Further, as explained above, the Court RECOMMENDS this action be dismissed,

22 without prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to obey Court orders and failure to prosecute this action.

23 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

24 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

25 after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written

26 objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to

27 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed 15 pages without

1 | Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the

2 | exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise

3 || reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limitation may be

4 | disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations under 28

5 | US.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time

6 | may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th

7 | Cir. 2014).

8 | ITISSO ORDERED.

7 | Dated: _ Mareh 12, 2026 | Wan D bo

10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28