Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Terry Landrum, representing himself, filed this civil action in the Eastern District of California on April 13, 2026, against Kim Rutledge and other defendants. On April 28, 2026, he paid the filing fee and filed a first amended complaint, which is the operative pleading, and on May 8, 2026 he filed a supplement to it. The order does not describe the claims in the pleading, and nothing in it addresses their merit.
On September 10, 2026, defendant Jennifer Troia filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and served it on Landrum. Under the court's Local Rule 230, a party opposing a motion must file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition within 14 days. The court computed the deadline as September 28, 2026: 14 days under Local Rule 230(c), three added days for service by mail under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d), and one more day because the resulting date fell on a Sunday, under Rule 6(a)(1)(C). Landrum filed neither document by then, and the court noted that the time to do so had passed.
The order was issued by a magistrate judge on October 14, 2026. It is a case-management order, not a ruling on Troia's motion to dismiss, which remains pending.
The Court’s Holding
The court first set out its authority. It cited Local Rule 110, which makes a party's failure to comply with the Local Rules or a court order a possible ground for sanctions within the court's inherent power, and Ninth Circuit decisions including Bautista, Ferdik, Malone and Henderson. It explained that a court may control its docket and may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, to obey a court order, or to comply with local rules.
Applying those principles, the court concluded that Landrum's failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition violated Local Rule 230. It did not dismiss the case or impose any sanction. Instead it ordered him to show cause in writing why sanctions, up to and including a recommendation of dismissal, should not be imposed.
The operative directive gives Landrum 14 days from service of the order either to show cause in writing or, alternatively, to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss filed September 10, 2026. The order warns that failure to respond on time may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed for failure to obey the Local Rules, failure to obey a court order, and failure to prosecute. That is a warning of a possible recommendation, not a finding or a dismissal. Any dismissal would be a separate later step, and the order does not address whether it would be with or without prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- This is an order to show cause, not a dismissal: no sanction has been imposed and the action remains pending.
- Under Local Rule 230 as applied here, the response to the motion was due 14 days after service, extended by three days for mail service and by one day because the deadline would otherwise fall on a Sunday, which made it September 28, 2026.
- Landrum can respond either by explaining the default or by filing an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss, in each case within 14 days of service of the order.
- Missing the new deadline may lead to a recommendation of dismissal, which the assigned district judge would then need to consider; the order itself makes no such recommendation.
- The pending motion to dismiss has not been decided, and the order says nothing about the merits of the first amended complaint.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a district court in the Eastern District of California handles a missed response to a motion to dismiss by a self-represented party: it gives written notice and a short opportunity to cure before any recommendation of dismissal. It is an unpublished, non-precedential order by a magistrate judge, and it rests on routine application of the local rules and established Ninth Circuit authority rather than announcing new law.
For litigants, the practical lesson is that Local Rule 230 deadlines are enforced, that a statement of non-opposition is an available option, and that silence can lead to a show-cause order. What remains open is whether Landrum responds, whether any sanction or dismissal recommendation follows, and how the motion to dismiss is ultimately resolved.