Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Rogelio Santibanez sued Volly Dykes and other defendants in the Central District of California in case number 2:26-cv-08854. The materials provided do not include the complaint, so the nature of the claims, the identities and roles of the other defendants, and the facts alleged are not described in the order and are not addressed here. What the order does show is that Plaintiff obtained a clerk's entry of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) as to a defendant identified as Jean Dykes, and had not moved for default judgment under Rule 55(b).
On October 19, 2026, Judge Stephen V. Wilson issued a one-page civil minute order in chambers, with no counsel appearing. The court acted on its own motion, citing Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962), for the proposition that a court has inherent power to dismiss for lack of prosecution without a motion from a party. The form order recites that "the below time period(s) has not been met" and then identifies the unmet step as the absence of a default judgment request after entry of default. The order does not state how long the plaintiff had waited or cite a local rule or earlier scheduling order setting the deadline.
The Court’s Holding
This is a show-cause order, not a ruling on the merits and not a dismissal. The court directed Plaintiff to explain in writing, on or before October 28, 2026, why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The court made no findings about the underlying claims, the defendants' liability, or whether Plaintiff was at fault for the delay. Its statements about what has or has not happened are procedural recitals tied to the docket, not findings made after contested proceedings.
The order identifies two ways to satisfy it: Plaintiff may seek default judgment under Rule 55(b), or notify the court that default judgment will not be sought, in which case the clerk will close the matter. The matter stands submitted on the filing of Plaintiff's response under Rule 78, so no hearing is set. If Plaintiff does not respond, the order states that silence will be deemed consent to dismissal of the action. The order does not say whether any dismissal would be with or without prejudice, and no judgment has been entered. Because the order itself dismisses nothing, any dismissal would come from a later order or entry. The order is an unpublished minute order and carries no precedential weight.
Key Takeaways
- Entry of default under Rule 55(a) does not end a plaintiff's obligations, because the order treats the failure to follow with a Rule 55(b) default judgment request as a lack-of-prosecution problem.
- The response deadline is October 28, 2026, and the order warns that failing to respond will be deemed consent to dismissal of the action.
- A plaintiff can respond either by seeking default judgment or by telling the court that default judgment will not be sought, which would lead the clerk to close the matter.
- The order rests on the inherent authority recognized in Link v. Wabash R. Co. and does not depend on any party's motion.
- Because this is a one-page unpublished minute order that decides nothing on the merits, it illustrates routine docket management and is not precedent.
Why It Matters
For practitioners in the Central District, the order is a reminder that obtaining a clerk's entry of default is only the first step and that a case can stall at that stage. The order tied its concern to the absence of a Rule 55(b) application as to Jean Dykes, and it offered a low-cost exit: file for default judgment or tell the court that none will be sought. Because the second option leads to closing the matter, a plaintiff who no longer wants to pursue a defaulted defendant should say so promptly instead of letting the case drift.
What remains open is considerable. The materials provided do not show Plaintiff's response, whether the court later dismissed anything, the status of claims against the other defendants, or the substance of the underlying dispute. The order speaks of dismissing "the action" but does not explain how the court would treat any defendants other than Jean Dykes. Readers should not treat the order as a ruling on the merits, a finding of fault, or a final judgment, and should check the docket for what followed the October 28, 2026 deadline.