(PC) Ausborn v. Newsom et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RANDY AUSBORN,
Plaintiff,
v.
NEWSOM, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:25-cv-01290 JLT HBK (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL
(Doc. 9)
Randy Ausborn, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On October 17, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order to show cause. (Doc.
7.) In its order to show cause, the Court took judicial notice of its records and found that at the
time Plaintiff had filed his complaint in this instant action, Plaintiff had filed at least 10 prior
lawsuits. (Doc. 7 at 1-2.) The magistrate judge found “Plaintiff’s representation, under penalty of
perjury, that he has filed no prior lawsuits while a prisoner is not correct.” (Id. at 2, emphasis in
original). The Court observed that despite Plaintiff’s pro se status, he is subject to the
requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits sanctions for bad
faith conduct, including fraud on the court. (Id.). The magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to “show
cause why the district court should not dismiss this case for Plaintiff’s apparent bad faith conduct
Case 1:25-cv-01290-JLT-HBK Document 10 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
under Rule 11 and pursuant to its inherent authority.” (Id. at 3.) The magistrate judge warned
Plaintiff that failure to respond would result in a recommendation that the Court “dismiss this
case as a sanction for Plaintiff’s abuse of the judicial process, which will count as a strike.” (Id.).
The magistrate judge also afforded Plaintiff the opportunity to voluntarily dismiss this action
before issuing findings and recommendations to the Court to dismiss this action. (Id.). Plaintiff
did not respond to the order to show cause.
After Plaintiff did not respond to the order to show cause, the magistrate judge issued
findings and recommendations to dismiss the action. (Doc. 9.) The Court served the findings and
recommendations on Plaintiff and informed him that he had fourteen days to file objections. (Id.
at 4.) The Court also warned Plaintiff that “failure to file any objections within the specified time
may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d
834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff has not filed any objections, and the time to do so has expired.
(See generally docket.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the
findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the
Court ORDERS:
1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on December 1, 2025 (Doc. 9) are
ADOPTED in full.
2. This action is dismissed without prejudice.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-01290-JLT-HBK Document 10 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 2