Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Eugene Allen Davis, Jr., representing himself, sued the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and other defendants on January 27, 2025. After the case reached the Eastern District of California, the magistrate judge dismissed the complaint on April 18, 2025 for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend, and gave Davis thirty days to file an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. No filings came, so the court issued an order to show cause on September 23, 2025. Davis did not respond, and on December 5, 2025 the magistrate judge recommended dismissal for failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with court orders.
Davis then asked for more time on December 22, 2025. The court granted the request and vacated the earlier recommendation. A second extension motion followed on February 2, 2026; the court granted it in part and ordered an amended complaint within twenty-one days. Davis again did not comply, and a second order to show cause issued on May 5, 2026. He answered that he expected the court to appoint counsel. The court told him he has no entitlement to appointed counsel in a civil action and, in case he was trying to retain a lawyer, allowed another twenty-one days to submit an amended complaint. The findings state that he has not responded.
The Court’s Holding
This document is a recommendation, not a final judgment. The magistrate judge submitted findings to District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta and recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to state a claim, and that the Clerk close the case. The materials provided do not show a ruling by the district judge.
The analysis rests on the court's inherent power to manage its docket and impose sanctions, including dismissal, and on Local Rule 110, citing Bautista v. Los Angeles County. The cited Ninth Circuit decisions, including Ferdik v. Bonzelet, which involved failure to file an amended complaint, permit dismissal for failure to prosecute or obey orders. The court weighed the five Ferdik factors: the public interest in prompt resolution, the court's docket management, prejudice to defendants, the policy favoring decisions on the merits, and less drastic alternatives.
The magistrate judge found that Davis's failure to comply with numerous orders, several directing him to file an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal, supported the first three factors. On alternatives, the September 10, 2026 order, ECF No. 18, expressly warned that noncompliance would result in dismissal, which the court treated as adequate warning. It concluded that the balance favors dismissal. The findings do not separately discuss the merits-policy factor or analyze the underlying claims; the failure-to-state-a-claim ground rests on the April 2025 screening dismissal. Parties have fourteen days after service to file objections, and failing to object may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
Key Takeaways
- Repeated failure to file an amended complaint after several extensions can support a recommendation of dismissal even when the court has been accommodating.
- A court order warning that noncompliance will result in dismissal was treated as satisfying the less-drastic-alternatives factor.
- Davis's expectation that the court would appoint counsel did not excuse missed amendment deadlines, and the court noted there is no entitlement to appointed counsel in a civil action.
- The recommendation is for dismissal without prejudice, but the findings do not address whether Davis could refile or whether limitations would bar a new action.
- The recommendation is not self-executing; the district judge must decide after the objection period.
Why It Matters
The findings show the steps a court may take before recommending dismissal of a self-represented plaintiff's case: a screening dismissal with leave to amend, two orders to show cause, a vacated recommendation, extensions of time, an explanation about counsel, and a final express warning. That record made the warning-based alternatives analysis straightforward.
The document is an unpublished magistrate judge recommendation, so it carries no precedential weight and applies existing Ninth Circuit authority rather than creating new law. Its practical lesson for litigants in the Eastern District is that extensions are discretionary, a hoped-for appointment of counsel does not pause deadlines, and a case may be closed if deadlines keep being missed. What remains open is the district judge's ruling and any objections Davis may file.