Rosa M Guzman v. Michael J Astrue

Filing 26

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, 3 by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mz)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROSA M. GUZMAN,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security,

15

Defendant.
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. ED CV 13-00272 RZ
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

17

The Court will dismiss this action without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to

18

prosecute. The Court explained the following background information in its November 19,

19

2013 Order To Show Cause Re Dismissal For Failure To Prosecute:

20
21

By Amended Notice of Order Dismissing Counsel of Record and

22

Notice to Plaintiff of Extension and Further Proceedings, served on

23

October 2, 2013 by mail to Plaintiff’s address of record, Plaintiff was ordered

24

to file a Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Complaint by October 31,

25

2013. The docket sheet shows that, as late as the date of this Order, Plaintiff

26

has not filed a Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff

27

has failed to comply with the Court’s order.

28

1

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that within 20 days of the filing date of

2

this Order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this action should not be

3

dismissed. If Plaintiff fails to file a written objection to dismissal of this

4

action within the time specified, it will be deemed to be consent to a dismissal

5

as against Defendant. The filing of a Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of

6

Complaint within 20 days, shall discharge the order to show cause.

7
8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve forthwith a
copy of this Order on the attorneys for all parties appearing in this action.

9
10

The Court has received nothing from Plaintiff since the OSC. Assuming that

11

she wanted to continue to pursue this action, Plaintiff was obligated to comply with the

12

Court’s order. Failure of a party to comply with an order of the court constitutes grounds

13

for dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

14

291 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 2002) (following Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.

15

1992)). Furthermore, a court possesses the inherent power to dismiss, sua sponte, for lack

16

of prosecution any action which has remained dormant because of the inaction or

17

dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-

18

31, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). The exercise of such power is recognized as

19

necessary to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Id. The Local Rules

20

of this Court further implement the policy of dismissing an action which the plaintiff has

21

failed to prosecute diligently. CIV. L.R. 41.

22

Although given the opportunity, Plaintiff has shown no cause why the action

23

should not be dismissed. Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute.

24

DATED: January 15, 2014

25
26
27

RALPH ZAREFSKY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
-2-