Case Explained: MARTINEZ V. CITY OF SANTA MARIA, ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-07-30 Docket: 2:23-cv-06288-MWC-MAR The ninth circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in Esteban Martinez’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Martinez’s motions for default judgment because the operative complaint was screened and dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) before defendants were obligated to respond, rendering default inappropriate under the standard set forth in *Eitel v. McCool*. Additionally, the court affirmed the district court’s decision to strike Martinez’s post-judgment motion for sanctions, citing the district court’s inherent power to control its docket as recognized in *Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc.* The court declined to address Martinez’s challenge to the dismissal of the operative complaint because it was not specifically and distinctly argued in his opening brief, deeming such issues abandoned under Ninth Circuit precedent. Claims regarding sealing were rejected as meritless, and all pending motions were denied. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.