Edmondson v. Social Security Administration

Filing 18

ORDER finding that the Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris on 7/5/2017. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION

JASON ALAN EDMONDSON

v.

PLAINTIFF

NO. 3:16-cv-00191 PSH

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration

DEFENDANT

ORDER

On July 28, 2016, plaintiff Jason Alan Edmondson (“Edmondson”) began this case
by filing a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g). In the complaint, he challenged
the final decision of the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
(“Commissioner”). On January 11, 2017, the Commissioner joined the issues by filing an
answer and a transcript of the administrative proceeding. The next day, the Court issued
a scheduling order. See Docket Entry 16. In the order, Edmondson was directed to file a
brief on or before February 23, 2017. He was warned that his failure to file a timely brief
might result in the dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute. February 23, 2017,
came and went without Edmondson filing a brief, a request for an extension of time to
file a brief, or any other submission.

Although the Court could have properly dismissed this case in light of Edmondson’s
failure to file a brief by February 23, 2017, out of abundance of caution the Court
entered an order on June 5, 2017, giving him one last opportunity to file a brief. The
Court gave him up to, and including June 26, 2017, to file his brief. He was warned in the
order that if he failed to file a brief on or before June 26, 2017, his complaint would be
dismissed. June 26, 2017, has now come and gone without Edmondson filing a brief, a
request for an extension of time to file a brief, or any other submission.
A federal court is vested with the inherent power to police its docket. As a part
of that power, the court may dismiss a case when a party fails to monitor the progress
of the case or fails to prosecute or defend it in a timely and diligent manner. See Local
Rule 5.5(c).
Edmondson has failed to monitor the progress of this case and failed to prosecute
it in a timely and diligent manner. Having weighed the competing interests, and on the
basis of the Court’s inherent policing power, the Court finds that his complaint should be,
and is, dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of July, 2017.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
-2-