Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Kaylin Marcus Thornton sued Amazon.com Services LLC in a case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The two-page order identifies the case as No. 2:26-cv-2257-DC-JDP (PS) and was filed on November 6, 2026. Amazon had filed a motion to compel arbitration on July 14, 2026.
On October 13, 2026, the court denied Thornton's motion to remand and directed him to respond to Amazon's arbitration motion within fourteen days. That direction appeared in ECF No. 12. In the later order, the court stated that Thornton had not complied with it. The November 6 order did not decide whether the dispute must be arbitrated, revisit the remand ruling, or dismiss the action. Instead, it addressed Thornton's failure to file the required response and set a further deadline.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson ordered Thornton to show cause within fourteen days why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. The order also directed Thornton, if he wished to continue the lawsuit, to file his response to Amazon's motion within the same fourteen-day period. It therefore required both an explanation concerning possible dismissal and the previously ordered substantive response.
The court explained that it has inherent power to control its docket and may impose sanctions, including dismissal, when appropriate. It cited Bautista v. Los Angeles County and Local Rule 110 for that authority. It also cited Henderson v. Duncan for the proposition that a court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. These authorities supplied the legal framework for the show-cause directive; the order did not make a final determination that dismissal was warranted.
The order expressly warned that failing to respond to it would constitute another failure to comply with a court order and would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. That warning describes a future recommendation, not an existing dismissal or a final judgment. The order also did not specify which judicial officer would act on any such recommendation or resolve the still-pending arbitration motion.
Key Takeaways
- Thornton received fourteen days to show cause why his lawsuit should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.
- If he wanted to continue the case, he also had to file within fourteen days the response to Amazon's motion to compel arbitration that the October 13 order had required.
- The court grounded possible sanctions in its inherent docket-management authority, Local Rule 110, and Ninth Circuit decisions recognizing dismissal for noncompliance and failure to prosecute.
- Ignoring the new order would produce a recommendation that the action be dismissed, according to the express warning in the order.
- The November 6 order neither compelled arbitration nor dismissed the case, and it did not alter the reported October 13 denial of Thornton's remand motion.
Why It Matters
The order places the immediate responsibility on Thornton to explain his noncompliance and cure the missing response if he intends to pursue the lawsuit. It gives him another opportunity to be heard while making clear that continued inaction may lead to a dismissal recommendation. Amazon's arbitration motion remains the substantive matter requiring a response, rather than an issue resolved by this order.
For readers following the docket, the important distinction is between a show-cause order and a final sanction. The court identified the legal basis for possible dismissal and stated the consequence of further noncompliance, but it did not yet recommend dismissal, enter judgment, or decide the arbitration question. The next filing and any later recommendation or order will determine whether the case proceeds.