Durell D. Clark v. Carolyn W. Colvin

Filing 8

MINUTE (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute and Comply With Court Orders by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 5/20/2015. (dts)

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

CV 14-6755-R (KK)

Title

Durell D. Clark v. Carolyn W. Colvin

Present: The
Honorable

Date

May 5, 2015

Kenly Kiya Kato, United States Magistrate Judge

Deb Taylor

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendant:

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why Action Should Not Be
Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute and Comply With Court Orders

I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 28, 2014, Plaintiff Durell D. Clark, proceeding pro se, lodged a
complaint challenging the denial of his applications for Title II Disability Insurance
Benefits and Title XVI Supplemental Security Income by the Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration. ECF No. 1.
On September 2, 2014, the Court issued a Case Management Order (“CMO”)
instructing Plaintiff to “promptly serve the summons and complaint on the
Commissioner,” and to “electronically file a proof of service” within 28 days of the filing
of the complaint. ECF No. 2 at 1-2. The CMO warned Plaintiff that failure to follow
those instructions “may result in dismissal of this case.” Id. at 2.
On September 8, 2014, Plaintiff’s complaint was filed by the Court, and Plaintiff
was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 3, 4. As of this date, Plaintiff
still has not filed a proof of service, per the Court’s CMO. Indeed, since September 8,
2014, there has been no activity in this case.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

CV 14-6755-R (KK)

Date

Title

May 5, 2015

Durell D. Clark v. Carolyn W. Colvin

II.
DISCUSSION
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the Court may dismiss an action with
prejudice for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with any court order. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b).
Here, Plaintiff has failed to file a proof of service of the complaint, and thus failed
to comply with the Court’s CMO. Consequently, under Rule 41(b), the Court may
properly dismiss the instant action with prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply
with a court order. However, before dismissing this action, the Court will afford Plaintiff
an opportunity to explain his failure to file a proof of service as directed by the CMO.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, why this
action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or comply with court orders.
Plaintiff shall have up to and including May 20, 2015, to respond to this Order. Plaintiff
is cautioned that failure to timely file a response to this Order will be deemed by the
Court consent to the dismissal of this action with prejudice.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2