Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Michael Andrew Carey filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 3, 2025, naming the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside and other defendants. On September 15, 2025, the court noted that Carey had not asked the clerk to issue summons and ordered him to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Carey did not respond to that order.
The United States Magistrate Judge later issued a report and recommendation proposing dismissal under the factors in Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986), citing Carey's failure to respond to the show-cause order, nearly a year without communication with the court, and the absence of any request for summons. Carey filed objections on September 23, 2026, more than a year after the show-cause order. He said he had not actually received and reviewed that order, argued that the report mischaracterized the operative pleading and the scope of the proceeding, warned that dismissal could prejudice him if a claim were time-barred, and explained that he had been litigating his claims in California state court. The district court reviewed the complaint, the record, the report, and the objections under 28 U.S.C. § 636 before accepting the recommendation.
The Court’s Holding
The district court found the objections not persuasive and accepted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation. Even though Carey was self-represented, he still maintained the burden to prosecute his case and had a duty to keep track of the progress of his lawsuit, citing Ringgold Corp. v. Worrall, 880 F.2d 1138, 1141-42 (9th Cir. 1989). The record showed that he filed the complaint on July 3, 2025, did not request issuance of summons, did not respond to the September 15, 2025 show-cause order, and did not appear in the case until filing his objections on September 23, 2026. No defendant had appeared in the action.
The court also rejected Carey's argument that dismissal might cause limitations prejudice. It reasoned that any such prejudice was a consequence of his own prolonged inactivity, and it noted that his objections did not identify which claim, if any, would be time-barred. The court further held that litigating related claims in California state court did not excuse inactivity in federal court. Where jurisdiction is concurrent, a plaintiff may pursue claims in both forums, but must diligently prosecute each case, citing Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281, 295 (1970). Because Carey chose to litigate in both courts and did not satisfy his federal obligation, the court accepted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation.
Accordingly, the court ordered judgment entered dismissing the action without prejudice. That disposition terminated this federal case for failure to prosecute; it did not decide the merits of Carey's claims against the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, or the other defendants.
Key Takeaways
- A self-represented plaintiff remains responsible for monitoring the case, responding to court orders, and moving the lawsuit forward.
- Failure to answer a show-cause order, request issuance of summons, or appear for more than a year supported dismissal for failure to prosecute.
- A general assertion that dismissal could create a limitations problem did not overcome the plaintiff's own inactivity, especially where no specific time-barred claim was identified.
- Litigating related claims in California state court did not eliminate the separate duty to prosecute the federal case in the Central District of California.
- The judgment dismissed the federal action without prejudice, meaning the order ended this case for lack of prosecution rather than adjudicating the underlying claims on the merits.
Why It Matters
The decision applies settled prosecution duties to a self-represented litigant and explains why parallel state-court litigation is not a substitute for pursuing a federal case. It also shows a district court addressing objections to a magistrate judge's dismissal recommendation on the existing record, including assertions about notice, possible limitations prejudice, and the scope of the pleading.
The ruling concerns case management and dismissal, not the validity of the underlying claims against the Riverside County superior court and the other defendants. Because the dismissal was expressly without prejudice, the order's stated consequence was termination of this federal action for failure to prosecute, not a merits judgment against Carey.