Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Faith Lynn Brashear, proceeding without a lawyer, filed this action on March 18, 2026, against a group of California state entities and officials, including the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (CUIAB), the Employment Development Department (EDD), the California Division of Workers' Compensation (DWC)/Workers Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), and several officials in their official capacities, as well as a private company, Apartment Management Consultants LLC (AMC). Only two of the defendants, CUIAB and its chair Nancy Faulkner, filed an answer. The other defendants never responded to the complaint.
On September 25, 2026, the court issued an order directing Brashear to show cause why her claims against AMC should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, and why her claims against EDD, Nancy Farias, and George Parisotto should not be dismissed for failure to timely serve them with process. The court also asked her to clarify whether she was seeking relief against the DWC, the WCAB, or both, and to identify which entity she believed had been properly served. The order warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal without prejudice and set a response deadline of October 30, 2026. Brashear never filed a response.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed the claims against EDD, Nancy Farias, and George Parisotto under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which requires a court to dismiss claims without prejudice when a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed. More than 90 days had passed since Brashear filed her complaint, and she had neither fixed the service problems identified in the September order nor shown that these defendants were properly served.
The court then dismissed the claims against AMC and the entity designated as 'California Division of Workers' Compensation/WCAB' for failure to prosecute and failure to provide the required clarification that would allow the court to address adequacy of service. Applying the five-factor test from Ninth Circuit precedent, the court found that the balance favored dismissal: the case had been pending for more than seven months, Brashear had ignored an express warning of dismissal, and the policy favoring decisions on the merits did not outweigh the public's interest in expeditious resolution and the court's need to manage its docket. All dismissals were without prejudice, meaning Brashear may attempt to refile her claims.
Key Takeaways
- A pro se plaintiff's failure to respond to a court's show-cause order, after an express warning that dismissal could result, supported dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
- Under Rule 4(m), claims against defendants who were not served within 90 days of the complaint's filing were dismissed without prejudice after the plaintiff failed to cure the identified service deficiencies.
- The court applied the five-factor failure-to-prosecute test and concluded that docket-management concerns and the public's interest in expeditious resolution outweighed the policy favoring disposition on the merits.
- Claims against the only defendants who had answered, CUIAB and Nancy Faulkner, were not dismissed by this order, which targeted the unserved and unprosecuted portions of the case.
- Because every dismissal was without prejudice, the plaintiff retains the ability to refile her claims if she can properly serve the defendants and pursue the case.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the procedural risks facing pro se litigants who sue multiple government agencies and officials but do not complete service of process or respond to court orders. Even though the court gave Brashear a specific opportunity to fix the problems and warned her of the consequences, her silence led to the dismissal of most of her case.
The decision also shows how district courts use their inherent authority to manage their dockets, dismissing stagnant cases while leaving the door open for plaintiffs to try again through refiling.