Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Norm Howard, who is representing himself and proceeding in forma pauperis, sued the California Health and Human Services Agency in the Eastern District of California in case number 2:26-cv-02956. Under Local Rule 302(c), the case was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge. The order itself does not describe the claims in the complaint, the relief Howard sought, or the facts underlying the dispute, so the nature of the grievance cannot be determined from this document alone.
On October 1, 2026, the magistrate judge issued an order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Howard filed a short response on October 9, 2026. The October 16, 2026 order, signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney, states that the response "does not show any basis for federal jurisdiction over this action." The order does not summarize the response, identify the jurisdictional theories Howard may have raised, or analyze any statute or doctrine. The show-cause order and the response are not part of the materials reviewed, so the court's reasoning is stated only in that single conclusion.
The Court’s Holding
The order is a recommendation, not a dismissal. The magistrate judge recommends that the action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the findings and recommendations are submitted to the assigned United States District Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district judge, identified in the docket as Judge Dale A. Drozd, has not yet ruled in any document reviewed, and no judgment has been entered. The order does not say whether a dismissal would be with or without prejudice or whether Howard would be given leave to amend, so those questions remain open.
Separately, the magistrate judge ordered a stay of all pleading, discovery, and motion practice pending resolution of the findings and recommendations. The stay has one carve-out: the court will entertain objections to the findings and recommendations and any non-frivolous motions for emergency relief, but it will not entertain or respond to other motions and filings until the recommendations are resolved. This stay is a case-management directive entered by the magistrate judge; it is not a ruling on the merits of any claim.
Howard may file written objections within fourteen days after being served, captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations," and serve a copy on all parties. The order 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's order is a recommendation to the district judge, so the case has not been dismissed and no final judgment exists.
- The stated ground is that Howard's response to the show-cause order did not show any basis for federal jurisdiction; the order gives no further analysis of the underlying claims.
- All pleading, discovery, and motion practice is stayed, except objections and non-frivolous emergency motions, until the district judge resolves the recommendations.
- Howard has fourteen days from service to object, and failing to do so may waive his right to appeal the district court's order.
- The order does not address leave to amend or whether dismissal would be with prejudice, and those issues are left for the district judge.
Why It Matters
This order shows the routine use of a show-cause order to test federal jurisdiction early in a pro se, in forma pauperis case, with the magistrate judge proposing a disposition for the district judge's decision. It carries no precedential weight; it is an unreported district-level recommendation that decides no contested legal question beyond the court's assessment of one filing.
What remains open is considerable. The district judge may adopt, modify, or reject the recommendation after any objections. Howard's complaint, the show-cause order, and his response are not in the reviewed materials, so the specific jurisdictional defect, whether it could be cured by amendment, and whether any claim could be refiled in another forum are not resolved here. Readers should not treat the recommendation as a final determination that Howard's claims lack merit; it addresses only the court's authority to hear them in federal court.