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)

Download PDF
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-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?