Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Patrick R. Lorenz, II, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, sued Davis and other defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Eastern District of California. The findings do not describe his underlying claims or the grounds for the summary judgment motion. Defendants moved for summary judgment on May 5, 2026. On June 26, 2026, the court ordered Lorenz to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition within twenty-one days. It told him that failure to do so would lead to a recommendation that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Lorenz then moved for a thirty-day extension to oppose the motion, and the court granted it. When he again failed to file a timely opposition, the court issued a further order directing him to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition no later than September 18, 2026. That order repeated the warning that noncompliance would produce a dismissal recommendation. According to the findings, the deadline has passed and Lorenz has neither responded to the summary judgment motion nor otherwise answered the court's order. Magistrate Judge Allison Claire issued the findings and recommendations on October 14, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Claire recommends that the action be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. This is a recommendation, not a judgment. No dismissal has taken effect, and the findings leave the pending summary judgment motion unresolved on its merits. The findings recite the five factors from Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992): the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court's need to manage its docket, the risk of prejudice to defendants, the public policy favoring disposition on the merits, and the availability of less drastic alternatives.
The analysis is brief. The court states that because the case cannot move forward without Lorenz's participation, the factors weigh in favor of dismissal. It does not walk through each factor separately, although the record it recites shows two written warnings and an extension already granted.
The matter is referred to District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any party may file written objections within fourteen days after service, captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any response is due within fourteen days after the objections are served. The findings warn that failing to object within the time allowed may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order, citing Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). The district judge has not yet acted on the recommendation.
Key Takeaways
- The document is a magistrate judge's recommendation, so the case remains pending until the district judge decides whether to adopt, modify, or reject it.
- The recommended dismissal is without prejudice, but the findings do not address whether Lorenz could refile or whether any limitations period would affect a new action.
- The record supporting the recommendation includes two orders warning of dismissal and a thirty-day extension that Lorenz himself requested and received.
- The court did not reach the merits of the summary judgment motion; the recommendation rests solely on Lorenz's failure to participate.
- Each party has fourteen days after service to object, and a party who does not object risks waiving the right to appeal the district court's order.
Why It Matters
The findings show how an Eastern District of California magistrate judge handles a pro se prisoner who does not oppose a dispositive motion. The court first gives written notice of the consequence, then extends time on request, then issues a second warning with a firm date, and only then recommends dismissal. That sequence bears on the Ferdik factor concerning less drastic alternatives, although the findings do not analyze that factor explicitly.
This is an unpublished, non-precedential district court recommendation that applies settled Ninth Circuit standards rather than announcing a new rule. Its significance is practical. A request for more time does not remove the obligation to meet the extended deadline. Here the court recommended Rule 41(b) dismissal instead of ruling on the summary judgment motion. What remains open is whether the district judge adopts the recommendation, whether Lorenz objects, and what effect any dismissal will have on a later filing.