Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Joaquin Aguilar, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Eastern District of California. The action proceeds against Jeff Macomber, Ron Broomfield, Stuart Sherman, an unidentified lieutenant in Receiving and Release, and John Does 1 through 6. The claim is deliberate indifference to Aguilar's safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Those are allegations, and the order makes no finding on them. Macomber, Broomfield, and Sherman answered the complaint on July 2, 2026.
On July 7, 2026, the court identified the case as appropriate for its post-screening Alternative Dispute Resolution project. It stayed the action so the parties could try to settle, and it set a video settlement conference before the undersigned magistrate judge for October 14, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. The court served that order on Aguilar at his last known address. On October 8, 2026, a minute order advised that the conference would proceed by Zoom video conference or Zoom telephone number. It noted that the Zoom contact information had been mailed to Aguilar's last known address, and the minute order was also served on him there.
The Court’s Holding
The order is not a ruling on the merits, and it imposes no sanction. It records that on October 14, 2026, the court convened the video settlement conference and remained on the Zoom conference until approximately 9:45 a.m. Aguilar did not appear.
Relying on Local Rule 110, the court observed that failure of a party to comply with a court order may be grounds for sanctions within the court's inherent power. It also invoked its inherent power to control its docket, which can include dismissal as a sanction, citing Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). On that basis it ordered Aguilar to show cause in writing, within twenty-one days after service of the order, why sanctions should not be imposed for failing to appear at the settlement conference or otherwise comply with the court's orders.
The court warned that failure to respond will result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation for dismissal of the action. The sanction previewed is therefore a recommendation, not a dismissal entered by this order. The order makes no findings about why Aguilar was absent. It does not say whether any dismissal would be with or without prejudice, and it does not say whether the July 7 stay remains in place.
Key Takeaways
- A party's failure to appear at a court-ordered settlement conference can prompt an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, even before any sanction is chosen.
- The court grounded its authority in Local Rule 110 and its inherent power to control its docket, and it cited Ninth Circuit authority recognizing dismissal as a possible sanction.
- Aguilar has twenty-one days after service of the order to respond in writing, and the order states that a failure to respond will result in sanctions.
- The sanction the court identified for non-response is a recommendation of dismissal, which is distinct from a final judgment of dismissal.
- The order records mailing of the scheduling order, the minute order, and Zoom details to Aguilar's last known address, but it makes no finding on whether he received them or why he did not appear.
Why It Matters
The order shows how courts handle missed appearances in prisoner civil-rights cases that have been routed to early settlement programs. It uses a show-cause process that gives the absent party a chance to explain before any sanction is selected. For a pro se litigant, the written response is the opportunity to explain the absence, for example a problem with mail or access to the Zoom information, and to show continued interest in prosecuting the case.
The order is a non-final, unpublished procedural step with no precedential weight. What remains open is Aguilar's response, the court's decision on whether sanctions are warranted and what form they take, the status of the stay, and the merits of his Eighth Amendment allegations, none of which the court has decided.