Jairo Mancilla Valdovinos v. A. Duenas, Chavez I. Valverde, Rivera, and Anderson

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 24, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01579
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAIRO MANCILLA VALDOVINOS, Case No. 1:25-cv-01579-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

13 v. MARCH 10, 2026 DEADLINE 14 A. DUENAS, CHAVEZ I. VALVERDE, RIVERA, and ANDERSON, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Jairo Mancilla Valdovinos, a pretrial detainee, initiated this action by filing a pro 18 se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 18, 2025. (Doc. 1). On January 19 12, 2026, the undersigned screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found cognizable Fourteenth 20 Amendment claims for excessive force against Defendants Duenas, Chavez I. Valverde, Rivera, 21 and Anderson in their individual capacities for tasing and striking Plaintiff with batons after he 22 was restrained, but no other cognizable claims. (Doc. 7 at 4-5). 23 Plaintiff was given three options: (1) file a First Amended Complaint; (2) file “Notice 24 Under Rule 41 and 15” stating he intends to stand on his complaint as screened and proceed only 25 on those claims the Court deemed cognizable, effectively dismissing his Fourteenth Amendment 26 excessive use of force claim against Defendant Chavez for striking Plaintiff with a baton before 27 he was handcuffed and his Eighth Amendment excessive use of force claims against all 28 Defendants; or (3) file a “Notice to Stand on Complaint” subject to the undersigned 1 | recommending the district court to dismiss the claims deemed not cognizable. (/d. at 6-8). 2 | Plaintiff was directed to deliver either his amended complaint or appropriate notice to correctional 3 | officials for mailing no later than February 13, 2026. (/d. at 7). The Court expressly warned 4 | Plaintiff that if he “fails to timely respond to this Court Order or seek an extension of time to 5 | comply” the undersigned “will recommend the district court dismiss this action for Plaintiff's 6 | failure to comply with this Court Order and prosecute this action.” (/d. at 7, 4 1). Ten days have 7 || passed since the February 13, 2026 deadline, allotting sufficient time to account for mailing, and 8 | Plaintiff failed to exercise any of the three options or request an extension of time to comply 9 | as of the date of this Order to Show Cause. See docket. 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits courts to involuntarily dismiss an action 11 | when a litigant fails to prosecute an action or fails to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. 12 | P. 41(b); see Applied Underwriters v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 889 (9th Cir. 2019) (citations 13 |} omitted); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) 14 | (‘[T]he consensus among our sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss 15 | under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”). Local Rule 110 similarly 16 | permits courts to impose sanctions on a party who fails to comply with a court order. 17 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 18 1. No later than March 10, 2026, Plaintiff shall comply with the Court’s previous 19 January 12, 2026 Order, or show cause why the Court should not recommend that this 20 case be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action 21 and/or his failure to timely comply with the Court’s previous January 12, 2026 Order. 22 2. Inthe alternative, by the same date, Plaintiff may file a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal 23 under Fed. Rule of Civ. Pro. 41(a) should he no longer wish to prosecute this action. 24 *> | Dated: _ February 24, 2026 Wola hares Back 26 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE