Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Eriberto Ulloa Cardenas filed a complaint against Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC in state court on July 8, 2026. The defendant removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on August 31, 2026, and served the plaintiff with the court's New Case Documents. On September 8, 2026, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which it served on the plaintiff by U.S. mail. The plaintiff did not file an opposition or statement of non-opposition as required by Local Rule 230.
On October 13, 2026, the court vacated the motion hearing and issued an order to show cause (OSC) directing the plaintiff to explain in writing within 14 days why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court's Local Rules. The OSC warned that any failure to timely comply would result in sanctions, including a recommendation to dismiss the action. The plaintiff failed to file any response to the OSC, and the time to do so expired.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge applied the five-factor test from Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988), for dismissal based on failure to prosecute or obey court orders. The first two factors — the public's interest in expeditious resolution and the court's need to manage its docket — weighed in favor of dismissal because the plaintiff failed to respond to the OSC and otherwise obey court orders, leaving no reasonable alternatives. The third factor, risk of prejudice to the defendant, also favored dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action, and the matter could not proceed without the plaintiff's compliance.
The fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition on the merits, also weighed in favor of dismissal because the plaintiff's conduct impeded progress toward a merits disposition. The fifth factor, availability of less drastic sanctions, was satisfied because the court's OSC expressly warned the plaintiff that failure to respond could result in a recommendation to dismiss the action, which constitutes adequate consideration of alternatives under Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992). The magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice under Local Rule 110 and directed the clerk to close the case. The findings and recommendations were submitted to the assigned district judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), with a 14-day objection period under Local Rule 304(b).
Key Takeaways
- A magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice after the plaintiff failed to oppose a motion to dismiss and then ignored a court order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.
- The court applied the Ninth Circuit's five-factor Carey test and found all factors weighed in favor of dismissal, including the presumption of prejudice from unreasonable delay.
- The court's prior warning in the OSC that non-compliance could lead to dismissal satisfied the requirement to consider less drastic alternatives.
- The recommendation is subject to a 14-day objection period before the assigned district judge, and failure to object may waive certain appellate rights.
- The case illustrates the court's inherent authority to manage its docket and impose terminating sanctions for failure to prosecute and obey local rules.
Why It Matters
This findings and recommendations order demonstrates the Eastern District of California's enforcement of Local Rule 230 (opposition requirements) and Local Rule 110 (sanctions for non-compliance) through the OSC process. It reinforces that a clear judicial warning of potential dismissal satisfies the 'consideration of alternatives' prong of the Carey analysis, and that a plaintiff's complete failure to engage with court orders — first by not opposing a dispositive motion, then by ignoring an OSC — will result in a recommendation of terminating sanctions even at an early stage of litigation.
For litigants in the Eastern District of California, the order underscores the importance of responding to motions to dismiss and court orders within the specified timeframes. The magistrate judge's recommendation, while not a final judgment, signals that the district court is likely to dismiss the action if the plaintiff does not file objections or otherwise cure the deficiencies. The 14-day objection period provides a final opportunity for the plaintiff to contest the recommendation before the assigned district judge.