Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
David Hill Bennett filed this action against Jah Bennett in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The case is No. 2:26-cv-3203 DAD CSK P. The November 3, 2026 findings and recommendations concern compliance with a filing-fee order and a later motion; they do not decide the underlying merits of Bennett’s claims against the defendant.
On September 25, 2026, the court ordered Bennett to file a completed in forma pauperis affidavit and a certified copy of his jail trust account statement, or pay the filing fee. The order warned that failure to comply would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. According to the findings and recommendations, the thirty-day period expired without a response or the required filings.
On October 30, 2026, Bennett filed a document styled “S.B.2 Tom Bane Death Penalty by Evid. Code 795 Hypnosis Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Guardian ad Litem F.R.C.P. 17,” docketed as ECF No. 6. He captioned that filing with seven different case numbers, including this one. The court addressed that motion alongside the recommended dismissal, rather than treating it as a reason to excuse the missed filing requirements.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim concluded that the action must be dismissed because Bennett failed to comply with the court’s prior order. The operative recommendation is dismissal without prejudice, not a merits adjudication or a dismissal with prejudice. The recommendation rests on the expired compliance period and the absence of the required affidavit, trust-account statement, or fee payment described in the order.
The court also recommended that ECF No. 6 be denied without prejudice. It explained that denial would not prejudice Bennett because he was pursuing the motion in his six other cases. The recommendation therefore leaves the motion’s substance unresolved in this action while tying its disposition here to the proposed dismissal.
The findings and recommendations were submitted to the assigned United States District Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The docket entry identifies District Judge Dale A. Drozd as the judge to whom the motion was referred. Bennett was given fourteen days after service to file written objections and serve a copy on all parties, with the caption “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The document warns that failure to object within that time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order, citing Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice based on Bennett’s failure to comply with the September 25 filing-fee order.
- The required compliance options were a completed in forma pauperis affidavit and certified jail trust account statement, or payment of the filing fee.
- Bennett’s October 30 motion was recommended for denial without prejudice, with the court noting that he was pursuing it in six other cases.
- The document contains recommendations, not a final district-judge judgment adopting dismissal or denying the motion.
- Bennett was advised that written objections were due within fourteen days after service and that failing to object could waive appellate rights.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the case-management consequence of ignoring an express order to complete in forma pauperis requirements or pay the filing fee: a recommendation of dismissal without prejudice. It also shows how a filing spread across multiple case captions may be addressed in one case without resolving its merits, particularly when the same motion remains pending elsewhere.
The immediate outcome remained subject to district-judge review. The fourteen-day objection process and waiver warning were therefore material parts of the disposition, preserving a route for Bennett to contest the recommendations before a final order.