Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
This civil action is pending in the Eastern District of California, where Roy West is the plaintiff and Ma Del Carmen Plosser and other defendants are the opposing parties. The order is a short procedural ruling by a magistrate judge rather than a decision on the merits, and it does not describe the underlying claims.
According to the order, defendants filed a motion to compel discovery responses on August 21, 2026, and a motion to compel plaintiff's deposition on September 4, 2026. They are docketed as ECF Nos. 34 and 38. As of October 21, 2026, the court observed that plaintiff had not filed a response to either motion.
The court explained that it requires litigants to meet deadlines so it can manage its docket effectively, and that it may impose sanctions, including dismissal, for failure to comply with its orders or local rules. It cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), Local Rule 110, Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Service, Carey v. King, and Pagtalunan v. Galaza. It acknowledged that involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty but said a district court has a duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden on the parties.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson issued an order to show cause. The court did not dismiss the case and did not rule on either motion to compel. Instead, it gave plaintiff a chance to explain why the case should not be dismissed for his failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants' motions. Plaintiff must show cause within twenty-one days why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.
The order also gives plaintiff a way to avoid that outcome. If he wishes to continue with the lawsuit, he must file, within the same twenty-one days, oppositions or statements of non-opposition to the two motions. The court warned that failure to respond to the order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and will result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.
Because the order only warns of a recommendation, nothing has been dismissed. Any dismissal would follow a later recommendation and is not a final judgment entered by this order. The order makes no finding on the merits of the discovery disputes and imposes no sanction beyond the warning.
Key Takeaways
- The order is a warning and a procedural opportunity, not a dismissal; the case remains pending and no sanction has been imposed.
- The trigger was plaintiff's failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to two pending discovery motions, ECF Nos. 34 and 38.
- Plaintiff has twenty-one days to respond, and the court expressly tied continuing the lawsuit to filing oppositions or statements of non-opposition to defendants' motions.
- The court stated that silence will be treated as noncompliance with a court order and will lead to a recommendation of dismissal, which is not the same as an immediate dismissal.
- The motions to compel discovery responses and plaintiff's deposition remain undecided.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a court may use a show-cause procedure before recommending dismissal under Rule 41(b) when a party does not answer pending discovery motions. By citing Ninth Circuit authority that describes dismissal as a harsh penalty while recognizing the court's duty to move cases efficiently, the magistrate judge frames the order as a chance to respond rather than as a sanction. It is a non-precedential trial-court docket order.
For litigants, the practical lesson is that a missed response deadline on a motion to compel can put the entire case at risk, not just the motion. A party facing such an order should respond within the stated period, either by opposing the motions or by stating non-opposition, and explain any reason for the delay. What remains open is whether plaintiff responds, how the court rules on the motions to compel, and whether dismissal is ultimately recommended.