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-KES-CDB

12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

13 v. FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM,

FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS,

14 CORONA, et al., AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

15 Defendants. 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

16

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

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

19 I. BACKGROUND

20 On January 26, 2026, the Court issued its First Screening Order in which the undersigned

21 found Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim against any named Defendant. (Doc.

22 7.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file a first amended complaint, curing the deficiencies identified

23 therein, or to file a notice of voluntary dismissal, within 21 days. (Id. at 5-10.)

24 On February 23, 2026, when more than 21 days passed without Plaintiff filing a response

25 to the screening order, the Court issued its Order Directing Plaintiff to Show Cause (OSC) in

26 Writing Why this Action Should Not Be Dismissed for His Failure to Obey Court Orders and

27 Failure to Prosecute. (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff was ordered to respond within 14 days. (Id. at 2-3.)

1 Court issued Findings and Recommendations to Dismiss Action Without Prejudice for a Failure

2 to Obey Court Orders and Failure to Prosecute. (Doc. 10.) Any objections were to be filed within

3 14 days. (Id. at 4-5.)

4 On March 16, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Request for Extension of Time to Respond to the

5 Court’s Order. (Doc. 11.)

6 On March 18, 2026, the Court issued its Order Vacating Findings and Recommendations

7 to Dismiss Action for Failure to Obey Court Orders and Failure to Prosecute, and Order Granting

8 Extension of Time Within Which to File a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 12.) Plaintiff was

9 directed to file a first amended complaint, curing the deficiencies identified in the screening

10 order, no later than April 9, 2026. (Id. at. 2-3.)

11 More than a week has elapsed following the April 9, 2026, deadline, yet Plaintiff has

12 failed to comply with the Court’s order directing him to file an amended complaint.

13 II. DISCUSSION

14 Applicable Legal Standards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S.

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

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

26 prosecute and to comply with local rules).

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

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

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

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

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

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

6 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

7 Analysis

8 Here, Plaintiff has failed to file a first amended complaint. Nor has Plaintiff otherwise

9 been in contact with the Court. Plaintiff failed to file a first amended complaint by April 9, 2026,

10 as directed on March 18, 2026. Moreover, Plaintiff previously failed to respond to the Court’s

11 screening order issued January 26, 2026, and the OSC issued February 23, 2026. Plaintiff has had

12 more than 80 days within which to file an amended complaint but has failed to do so. Given

13 Plaintiff’s multiple failures and the Court’s inability to communicate with Plaintiff, there are no

14 other reasonable alternatives available to address Plaintiff’s failure to obey orders and failure to

15 prosecute this action. Thus, the first and second factors — the expeditious resolution of litigation

16 and the Court’s need to manage its docket — weigh in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at

17 1440.

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

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

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

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

22 to file a notice of voluntary dismissal, within 21 days. After an OSC issued and the Court issued

23 previous Findings and Recommendations to dismiss this action, Plaintiff sought an extension of

24 time to April 9, 2026, within which to file a first amended complaint; the Court vacated the

25 findings and granted Plaintiff the requested extension of time. Nevertheless, Plaintiff has taken no

26 action since March 18, 2026. Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the screening order and

27 the Court’s subsequent orders, his inaction amounts to an unreasonable delay in prosecuting this

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

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

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

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

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

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

7 failed to comply with the screening order and March 18 order and has stopped communicating

8 with the Court. Therefore, the fourth factor — the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

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

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

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

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

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

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

15 10, emphasis in original.) Next, in the OSC issued February 23, 2026, Plaintiff was warned as

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

17 recommendation that this action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court

18 orders and failure to prosecute.” (Doc. 8 at 3, emphasis in original.) And, in the order granting

19 Plaintiff an extension of time to April 9, 2026,1 the Court cautioned: “Any failure by Plaintiff to

20 timely file a first amended complaint as ordered will result in the reissuance of findings and

21 recommendations to dismiss this action with prejudice for failure to obey court orders and

22 failure to prosecute.” (Doc. 12 at 3, emphasis in original.) Lastly, in the First Informational

23 Order in Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil Rights Case issued October 8, 2025, Plaintiff was advised

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

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

26

27 1 This same order reminded Plaintiff “that ‘all Court deadlines are strictly enforced’ and that ‘[r]equests for time

extensions must be filed before the deadline expires …’” and stated that “the Court is not inclined to grant further

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

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

3 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).” (See Doc. 2 at 1.) That same order advised Plaintiff that “all Court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 prejudice.

12 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

13 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS this action be dismissed, without

14 prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim, failure to obey Court orders, and failure to

15 prosecute this action.

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

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

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

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

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

21 leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the

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

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

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

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

26 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C).

27 ///

] A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time may result in the waiver

2 | of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).

3 | ITIS SOORDERED.

* | Dated: _ April 17, 2026 | hrnnrD bo

5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

7

8

9

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28