Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
David Vang filed this civil action pro se and in forma pauperis on August 31, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, naming the City of Fresno and other defendants. The case was assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-06955-KES-EGC. The October 29, 2026 document at issue is a Findings and Recommendation to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, not a final judgment.
On September 25, 2026, the court issued a screening order finding that Vang's complaint failed to state any cognizable claims. The screening order gave Vang thirty days to choose among three options: (1) file an amended complaint, (2) notify the court that he wished to stand on his complaint, or (3) file a notice of voluntary dismissal. The screening order was served on Vang by mail that same day.
After Vang failed to timely respond to the screening order, the magistrate judge issued an order to show cause regarding why Vang had failed to obey the screening order. In response to the order to show cause, Vang indicated that he wished to stand on his original complaint rather than amend it or voluntarily dismiss the action.
The Court’s Holding
Because Vang elected to stand on his original complaint after the court had already found that the complaint failed to state any cognizable claims, the magistrate judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The recommendation expressly relies on the reasons explained in the court's September 25, 2026 screening order rather than reanalyzing the merits of the claims.
The document is a findings and recommendation, not a final order. It will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with the findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections, which must be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations" and may not exceed fifteen pages. No new exhibits may be filed with objections, though existing exhibits may be referenced by document and page number.
The court warned that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of the right to challenge the magistrate judge's factual findings on appeal, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014). The court also directed the Clerk of Court to send a copy of the order to Vang at his address as listed on the docket for this matter.
Key Takeaways
- A pro se plaintiff who chooses to stand on a complaint already found deficient in a screening order risks a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
- The magistrate judge's recommendation is not a final order; it is submitted to the assigned district judge for review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
- Parties have fourteen days after service to file written objections captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations," limited to fifteen pages.
- No new exhibits may be filed with objections, and failure to file timely objections may waive the right to challenge the magistrate judge's factual findings on appeal under Wilkerson v. Wheeler.
- The court directed the Clerk of Court to send a copy of the findings and recommendation to the plaintiff at his address listed on the docket.
Why It Matters
This case illustrates the procedural consequences facing pro se litigants who decline to amend a complaint after a court's screening order identifies deficiencies. Under the in forma pauperis screening process, courts review complaints for cognizable claims, and plaintiffs who stand on deficient pleadings face a recommendation of dismissal for failure to state a claim. The order also underscores the importance of the objections process in magistrate judge practice: failing to object within the prescribed fourteen-day period can forfeit appellate review of the magistrate judge's factual findings under Ninth Circuit law.
The order demonstrates the magistrate judge's role in screening pro se complaints and issuing findings and recommendations to the assigned district judge, as well as the procedural safeguards available to litigants, including the right to file objections, the fifteen-page limit, and the prohibition on new exhibits. Because the recommendation is not self-executing, the case remains pending before the assigned district judge, who will consider any timely objections before adopting, modifying, or rejecting the recommendation.