Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Downey Daniels filed a complaint against Raquel Mosquera in Kings County Superior Court. The defendant removed the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, where it was stayed under the court's Alternative Dispute Resolution program. After the defendant opted out of that program, the court ordered the parties to file statements about discovery and a proposed schedule (Doc. 20).
According to the order, the plaintiff refused service of that order and the U.S. Postal Service returned it as undeliverable. The court then issued a second order directing the plaintiff to file his statement (Doc. 22). The plaintiff again refused the court's mail, and a re-service attempt came back marked "I/P Refused" and undeliverable.
The magistrate judge found that the plaintiff had failed to prosecute the action and failed to comply with the court's orders. After weighing the factors the Ninth Circuit identified in Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002), the magistrate judge concluded that terminating sanctions were appropriate and recommended dismissal without prejudice. Those findings and recommendations, dated August 21, 2026, are Doc. 23. This article relies on the district judge's adopting order, which summarizes them. The findings themselves were not among the materials reviewed, so their factor-by-factor analysis is not described here.
The Court’s Holding
The district judge adopted the findings and recommendations in full. The order states that they were served on the parties with notice that objections were due within 30 days and that failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of certain rights on appeal, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).
The Postal Service returned the court's mail to the plaintiff marked "Undeliverable, Return to Sender, Unable to Forward, REFUSED" on October 21, 2026. The court nonetheless treated service as fully effective under Local Rule 182(f). The plaintiff filed no objections, and the time to do so had passed.
Conducting a de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court concluded that the findings and recommendations were supported by the record and proper analysis. It ordered the action dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the court's orders and failure to prosecute, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order does not set out its own factor-by-factor Pagtalunan discussion. It relies on the magistrate judge's analysis.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff's repeated refusal of court mail, which left two orders about discovery and scheduling undelivered, supported dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders in this case.
- Under Local Rule 182(f), as applied here, service on the plaintiff was deemed fully effective even though the Postal Service returned the mail as refused and undeliverable.
- The dismissal is without prejudice, so it is not an adjudication of the merits of the plaintiff's claims, although the order does not address whether any refiled claim would be timely.
- The court reviewed the magistrate judge's recommendation de novo and adopted it in full after no objections were filed within the 30-day period.
- The order notes that failing to object may result in waiver of certain appellate rights, but it does not decide any appeal or waiver question.
Why It Matters
This is a short adopting order in a now-closed case, but it shows how an Eastern District of California judge handled a plaintiff who stopped accepting the court's mail. Rather than leaving the case stayed or pending indefinitely, the court relied on the magistrate judge's recommendation, the Pagtalunan framework for dismissal, and the local rule deeming service effective to end the case. Because the order treats the mail refusal as grounds for terminating sanctions, litigants in that district should understand that declining delivery does not stop deadlines, including objection deadlines, from running.
The scope of relief is limited. The dismissal is without prejudice, and the court made no ruling on the merits. The order is a district court ruling with no precedential weight beyond this case. The materials do not say why the plaintiff refused the mail, whether the plaintiff could timely refile, or whether limitations issues would affect any new filing. Those questions remain open.