Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Gregory Downs petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in a habeas action against the Sacramento Superior Court, Case No. 2:25-cv-3369-DJC-JDP (P). In February 2026, the magistrate judge directed Downs to file an amended petition within thirty days. Despite receiving multiple extensions of time, he had not filed an amended petition. On September 14, 2026, the court therefore entered an order directing him to show cause why the action should not be dismissed, and directed that any response to that order be accompanied by either an amended petition or a notice of voluntary dismissal (ECF No. 16).
Downs responded to the show-cause order with a filing titled "request for order re copy of the rules" (ECF No. 17). The magistrate judge understood the filing to argue that Downs needed a court order to access the law library at the Sacramento County Jail. The request did not supply the amended petition or voluntary-dismissal notice contemplated by the show-cause order. The court had previously provided Downs with a habeas form (ECF No. 7-1) and an order that he could present to jail officials to establish that he was engaged in litigation in federal court (ECF No. 10 at 1).
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge denied Downs's request. The order gave two reasons. First, the court had already provided Downs with a habeas form, and at this juncture he should not require any legal research to submit an amended petition; he need only state the basis of his claims, which should already be known to him. Second, the court had previously provided Downs with an order that he could present to officials to establish that he was engaged in litigation in federal court. The decision addressed only the request before the court and did not grant library access or any further research materials.
The court also found that more than six months had elapsed since it gave Downs a thirty-day deadline to file an amended petition and that he had repeatedly failed to comply with that order. It therefore recommended that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, while expressly giving Downs a final opportunity to submit an amended petition while the findings and recommendations remained pending. The document thus contains an immediate order denying ECF No. 17 and a recommendation concerning dismissal, rather than a final district-judge judgment dismissing the action.
The findings and recommendations were submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days of service, any party may file written objections and serve a copy on all parties, captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations," with any response due within fourteen days of service of the objections. The order warned that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district court's order, citing Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998), and Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Key Takeaways
- The court denied Downs's request (ECF No. 17) concerning a copy of the rules and access to the Sacramento County Jail law library.
- The magistrate judge concluded that the previously supplied habeas form and the prior litigation order already addressed the needs identified in Downs's response.
- Repeated failure to file the required amended petition for more than six months supported the recommendation to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute.
- Downs received a final opportunity to file an amended petition while the findings and recommendations remained pending before the district judge.
- The dismissal recommendation is not a final order; it remained subject to the assigned district judge's consideration and the order's fourteen-day objection process.
Why It Matters
The order cleanly distinguishes an immediate ruling on a litigant's request from a recommended case-dispositive outcome. It denies the library-related request outright but leaves the proposed dismissal for failure to prosecute to the district judge, with an opportunity for objections and a final chance to amend. That distinction matters for anyone tracking the case: the action was not yet dismissed when this document issued.
For Downs, the practical requirements were specific: submit an amended petition stating the basis of his claims or pursue voluntary dismissal, rather than continue seeking research-related orders. The court's reasoning rested on the materials and extensions already provided and on the prolonged noncompliance with the February 2026 deadline.