Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Willie Lee Watters, III, a prisoner litigating in the Eastern District of California, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that his civil rights were violated. The defendants include Governor Gavin Newsom, Warden Kevin Hixon, S. Marquez, and Bravo, along with CDCR. The order does not describe the underlying facts, and none of the allegations were adjudicated. On March 20, 2026, the magistrate judge screened the complaint, found that it failed to state a cognizable claim, and dismissed it with leave to amend. Watters was told to file a second amended complaint within 30 days.
Watters sought and received three extensions of time. In the most recent order, dated July 16, 2026, the court gave him another 30 days and warned that no further extensions would be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. He did not file a second amended complaint. The magistrate judge then found that he had failed to prosecute the case and failed to comply with the court's order. After considering the factors from Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986), the magistrate judge concluded that terminating sanctions were appropriate and recommended dismissal without prejudice.
The findings and recommendations were served on August 27, 2026. They gave Watters 14 days to object and warned that failing to object could waive certain appellate rights. Watters filed objections saying he had been researching and working on a response, that his progress was slow because the facility had another lockdown, and asking for an additional extension.
The Court’s Holding
District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston denied the request for a fourth extension. She noted that the court had expressly warned Watters that no further extensions would be granted absent extraordinary circumstances, and she found that he showed no sufficient circumstances. The court had already given him the applicable legal and pleading standards in its screening orders, so he was not required to do additional legal research to cure the deficiencies identified there. Nothing in the record suggested he lacked the time or ability to file a second amended complaint by the final deadline.
After de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court concluded that the findings and recommendations were supported by the record and by proper analysis. It observed that Watters had more than five months to file a second amended complaint and did not. The court adopted the findings and recommendations in full, dismissed the action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court's order, and directed the Clerk to close the case. The order's caption describes the dismissal as without prejudice.
The ruling is purely procedural. It does not decide whether Watters's claims have merit, and it does not address whether a new action could be timely. Nothing remains pending in this case.
Key Takeaways
- A court that has repeatedly extended a deadline to amend may dismiss for failure to prosecute when the plaintiff still files nothing.
- An express warning that further extensions require extraordinary circumstances makes a later request harder to justify, and a general assertion of ongoing research and a facility lockdown did not meet that standard here.
- A plaintiff who has already been given the pleading standards in screening orders cannot rely on a need for more legal research to excuse further delay.
- Filing objections does not prevent adoption of a magistrate judge's recommendation when the district judge's de novo review finds it supported by the record.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished district court order in a single prisoner case, so it carries no precedential weight. Its value is as an illustration of how the Eastern District of California handles the end of a screening-and-amendment cycle, including its warnings on extension requests and its use of the Henderson factors.
For self-represented prisoner litigants, the practical lesson is that a dismissal with leave to amend starts a clock the court will enforce. A late request that offers only general reasons is unlikely to succeed after repeated extensions. Because the dismissal is without prejudice and the order says nothing about limitations or refiling, its effect on any later claim is not resolved here.