Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Michael Garcia, representing himself, sued Zenith Insurance and other defendants in the Eastern District of California in case number 2:26-cv-02395. Under Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney, who handled the preliminary screening. On September 14, 2026, the magistrate judge granted Garcia's application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed his complaint with leave to amend, giving him thirty days to file an amended pleading. The order, as described in the findings, warned that failing to file an amended complaint would lead to a recommendation that the action be dismissed. The findings do not describe the substance of the original complaint's claims or the grounds on which it was dismissed; those are in the earlier order (ECF No. 3), which was not among the materials reviewed.
According to the findings, the thirty-day period expired without an amended complaint and without any request for more time. Because the earlier screening order was not provided, this article cannot say why the original complaint was deficient, and those deficiencies are not found or confirmed in the findings and recommendations.
The Court’s Holding
On October 20, 2026, Judge Delaney issued findings and recommendations, not a final judgment. She recommended that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and that the Clerk be directed to close the case. Those recommendations have no effect until the assigned district judge, identified in the docket entry as Judge Dena M. Coggins, acts on them.
In reaching this recommendation, the court said it had considered the five factors from Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992): the public's interest in expeditious resolution, the court's need to manage its docket, the risk of prejudice to defendants, the public policy favoring decisions on the merits, and the availability of less drastic alternatives. The analysis is brief. The court stated only that, because the case cannot move forward without plaintiff's participation, the factors weigh in favor of dismissal. It did not separately discuss each factor, and it did not say whether dismissal would be with or without prejudice.
Garcia has fourteen days after being served to file written objections captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The findings advise that failing 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
- This document is a recommendation from a magistrate judge, not a dismissal order; the case stays open until the district judge rules on the findings and any objections.
- The recommendation rests on the plaintiff's silence: no amended complaint and no extension request after a thirty-day leave to amend and an express warning.
- The earlier dismissal with leave to amend was not a final judgment; it gave the plaintiff a chance to cure, and failing to use that chance is what prompted the recommended dismissal.
- The findings do not say whether the recommended dismissal would be with or without prejudice, so that question remains open for the district judge's order.
- A party who wants to challenge the recommendation should object within fourteen days, because the findings warn that failing to do so may waive the right to appeal.
Why It Matters
The findings are routine, short, and unpublished, so they carry no precedential weight beyond this case. Their value is as an example of how Eastern District of California magistrate judges handle self-represented litigants who do not respond to a leave-to-amend order: a screening order with a clear deadline and warning, followed by a recommendation under Rule 41(b) and the Ferdik factors.
What remains open is substantial. The district judge may adopt, modify, or reject the recommendation, and Garcia may still object. The merits of his claims against Zenith Insurance were not decided in these findings, and the effect of any eventual dismissal on a later suit is not addressed.