MacKenzie T. Morgan et al v. Carolyn W. Colvin

Filing 11

MINUTE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Margaret A. Nagle. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 1/22/2015. (mz)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 14-6165-ODW-MAN

Title

MacKenzie T. Morgan v. Carolyn W. Colvin

Present: The
Honorable

Date

January 7, 2014

MARGARET A. NAGLE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Earlene Carson

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

N/A

N/A

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order

Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Judicial Review of Decision Of Commissioner of Social Security on
August 12, 2014. In paragraph I of its August 12, 2014 Case Management Order (“CMO”), the Court
ordered plaintiff to promptly serve the summons and complaint on the Commissioner and to file a Proof
of Service, showing compliance with the CMO, within 28 days after filing the Complaint. The CMO
instructed plaintiff that, to effect service, she must send a copy of the summons and complaint by
registered or certified mail to each of the following: “(a) the United States Attorney for the Central
District of California, or his or her authorized agent, addressed to the civil process clerk at the Office of
the United States Attorney, Civil Division, Room 7516, Federal Building, 300 North Los Angeles
Street, Los Angeles California 90012; (b) Region IX Chief Counsel, Office of the General Counsel,
Social Security Administration, 160 Spear Street, Suite 800, San Francisco, CA 94105-154; and (c)
the Attorney General of the United States in Washington, D.C.” (Docket No. 6 at 2 (emphasis
added).) The CMO warned plaintiff that failure to comply could result in dismissal of the case.
On December 9, 2014, the Court ordered plaintiff to show good cause, on or before December 29, 2014,
why no Proof Of Service had been filed and why the case should not be dismissed for lack of diligent
prosecution and failure to comply with the Court’s prior Order. Plaintiff was instructed that, instead of
responding to the Order To Show Cause, she could file the required Proof of Service.
On December 24, 2014, plaintiff, through counsel, filed a “Proof of Service of Document,” in which she
declared under penalty of perjury that, on August 5, 2014, she mailed a copy of the summons and
complaint in the mail, first class, to Magistrate Judge Margaret Nagle, 312 North Spring Street, Los
Angeles, CA 90012-4701 and to the Office of the U.S. Attorney Civil Division, 300 North Los Angeles
Street, Suite 7515, Los Angeles, CA 90012. (Docket No. 8.) Plaintiff did not attach any registered or
certified mail receipts, and she did not state that she had served the Office of the Attorney General of the
United States or the Region IX Chief Counsel for the Social Security Administration.
On December 29, 2014, plaintiff’s “Proof of Service of Document” was stricken from the docket by the
Clerk’s Office. The Clerk’s Office issued a Notice to Filer of Deficiencies, stating that the title page
was missing and the wrong court form was used. Over a week has passed since plaintiff’s defective
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 14-6165-ODW-MAN

Date

Title

January 7, 2014

MacKenzie T. Morgan v. Carolyn W. Colvin

Proof of Service was stricken from the docket, and plaintiff has neither responded to the Order To Show
Cause or filed a valid Proof of Service. Accordingly, on or before January 22, 2015, plaintiff is
ORDERED TO SHOW GOOD CAUSE, why no valid Proof Of Service has been filed and why this
case should not be dismissed for lack of diligent prosecution and failure to comply with the Court’s
prior Orders. In lieu of responding to this Order To Show Cause, plaintiff may file a proper Proof of
Service demonstrating compliance with the CMO.
Plaintiff is reminded that a proper Proof of Service in this case would consist of: (1) the certified or
registered mail receipts; and (2) a declaration under penalty of perjury that the summons and complaint
were served by registered or certified mail on the United States Attorney for the Central District of
California, the Region IX Chief Counsel for Social Security Administration, and the Attorney
General of the United States in Washington, D.C.
Plaintiff is expressly cautioned that her failure to timely respond to this Order may result in a
recommendation to dismiss this action for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)
and Local Rule 41-1.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2