Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Carl Morgan filed a complaint in the Eastern District of California naming American Heritage Credit Union and Own A Car of Fresno. A magistrate judge screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and concluded that Morgan had stated cognizable claims against Own A Car of Fresno, but that several of his claims failed. The district court's order does not describe the underlying facts or identify the specific claims, so the nature of the dispute is not stated in the order itself. The screening order gave Morgan 30 days to choose among three courses: file a notice that he would proceed only on the cognizable claims, file a first amended complaint, or file a notice that he wished to stand on his complaint.
Morgan did not respond within the 30 days. The magistrate judge granted an extension and told him that failure to respond could result in dismissal of the action. Morgan again did not respond. In Findings and Recommendations dated September 17, 2026 (Doc. 8), the magistrate judge found that Morgan had failed to prosecute the action and failed to comply with the court's order. The magistrate judge applied the factors identified in Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002), concluded that terminating sanctions were appropriate, and recommended dismissal without prejudice.
The findings were served on Morgan with notice that objections were due within 14 days and that failing to object could waive certain appellate rights, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014). Morgan filed no objections, and the time to do so passed.
The Court’s Holding
Applying 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the district judge performed a de novo review of the case even though no objections were filed. Having reviewed the matter, the court concluded that the Findings and Recommendations were supported by the record and proper analysis. The order itself is short and does not restate the Pagtalunan analysis. That reasoning is contained in the magistrate judge's findings, which the court adopted rather than rewrote.
The court ordered three things. It adopted the Findings and Recommendations in full. It dismissed the action without prejudice for Morgan's failure to comply with the court's order and failure to prosecute. And it directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The relief is dismissal of the entire action, including the claims the magistrate judge had found cognizable against Own A Car of Fresno. The dismissal rests on non-compliance with court orders, not on a ruling about the merits. The order does not address leave to amend, refiling, statutes of limitations, or whether any claim could be pursued in a new action, and it does not mention any appearance or answer by a defendant.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff who lets a screening-order deadline and a court-granted extension pass without any response risks dismissal for failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute.
- The extension order expressly warned Morgan that failure to respond might result in dismissal, and the record recounts that warning before describing the dismissal recommendation.
- The district judge performed de novo review under § 636(b)(1) even though no objections were filed, and then adopted the magistrate judge's findings in full.
- The dismissal is without prejudice and is not a merits ruling, even though screening had identified some cognizable claims against one defendant.
- This is a non-precedential district court order that applies existing Ninth Circuit standards rather than announcing new law.
Why It Matters
The order is a routine example of how the Eastern District of California handles a screened case in which the plaintiff goes silent. Screening found at least some viable claims, yet the case ended because Morgan never told the court how he wished to proceed. The practical lesson is that surviving screening in part does not keep a case alive if the plaintiff does not take the step the screening order requires.
The order carries little precedential weight. It is a short district court order that adopts a magistrate judge's findings, does not discuss the Pagtalunan factors in its own words, and is not designated as reported. What remains open is whether Morgan may bring his claims again in a new action. The order is silent on that question, and any new filing would face whatever limitations and other defenses apply, none of which this order decides.