Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Willie Jenkins sued Rodriguez and other defendants in the Eastern District of California under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that his civil rights were violated while he was housed at Fresno County Jail. Those assertions are his allegations only. The order does not evaluate them or find that any violation occurred. It reflects that Jenkins did not respond to the court's screening order.
The magistrate judge found that Jenkins had failed to prosecute the case and had failed to comply with the court's order. After considering the factors the Ninth Circuit identified in Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002), the magistrate judge found terminating sanctions appropriate and recommended dismissal without prejudice. Those Findings and Recommendations, dated September 22, 2026 and filed as Doc. 13, were only a recommendation until the district judge acted. The district court's order summarizes that document but does not reproduce its factor-by-factor discussion, and the document itself was not among the materials reviewed.
The court served the Findings and Recommendations on Jenkins and told him that objections were due within 21 days. It warned him, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014), that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of certain rights on appeal. The Postal Service returned the court's mail as undeliverable, but the court deemed service fully effective under Local Rule 182(f). Jenkins filed no objections, and the time to do so passed.
The Court’s Holding
District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston performed a de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the court concluded that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. The order states that review was de novo even though no objections were filed.
The court adopted the Findings and Recommendations in full, dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court's order, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The dismissal operates as a sanction for inaction. It is not a ruling on the merits of the section 1983 claims.
The order does not grant leave to amend, set a deadline to refile, or address any statute of limitations. Whether Jenkins may pursue his claims in a new action, and whether any limitations defense would apply, remains open. The order is unreported and carries no precedential weight.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff who does not respond to a court's screening order risks dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order, even though no claim has been tested on the merits.
- Terminating sanctions in the Ninth Circuit are evaluated under the Pagtalunan factors; here the magistrate judge considered them, and the district judge found the resulting analysis proper and supported by the record.
- The court treated service as fully effective under Local Rule 182(f) even though mail was returned undeliverable, so a litigant who does not keep the court informed of a current address bears the risk of missing deadlines.
- The court said it performed a de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) even though Jenkins filed no objections, and it had warned him that missing the 21-day deadline may waive certain appellate rights.
- A dismissal without prejudice is not a merits ruling, but this order does not grant leave to amend or say whether a new action would be timely.
Why It Matters
This order shows how a section 1983 case brought from a county jail can end at an early stage. The sequence runs from a screening order, to non-response, to Findings and Recommendations, to a 21-day objection window, to adoption by the district judge and closure of the file. Litigants should note that returned mail did not prevent the court from treating service as effective and dismissing the case.
The order is unreported, adopts a recommendation whose full text was not provided, and says little about the individual Pagtalunan factors, so it offers limited guidance on how those factors were weighed. Its value is as an example of routine docket management rather than as authority. Nothing in it resolves the merits of Jenkins's allegations about his time at Fresno County Jail.