Gibson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

ORDER DISMISSING the Action for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with the Court's Orders and Failure to Prosecute signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/30/2012. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, )
)
)
Defendant.
)
BEVERLY JEAN GIBSON,

Case No.: 1:12-cv-00945 - JLT
ORDER DISMISSING THE ACTION FOR
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
COURT’S ORDERS AND FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE

16
17

Beverly Jean Gibson (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

18

seeking judicial review of a determination of the Social Security Administration. For the following

19

reasons, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED.

20

I.

21

Factual and Procedural History
Plaintiff initiated this action on June 11, 2012, by filing her complaint. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

22

1915(a), the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend on June 15,

23

2012. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint on June 28, 2012 (Doc. 7), which the

24

Court approved for service on July 2, 2012. (Doc. 8). The Court directed Plaintiff to “complete and

25

submit to the Court the ‘Notice of Submission of Documents in Social Security Appeal Form” issued

26

by the Clerk. Id. at 4.

27
28

The instructions issued in the form directed Plaintiff to provide the Clerk’s Office with the
following documents:
1

1
2
3

1. The original Summons and five (5) copies of the Summons
2. Five (5) copies of the Order directing service by the U.S. Marshal
3. Five (5) copies of the Complaint
4. One completed USM-285 form addressed to the Social Security Administration

4

The Clerk’s Office notified the Court that Plaintiff failed to complete the forms required for service

5

and attempted to supplement her First Amended Complaint with additional exhibits and documents

6

not approved for service. Therefore, on July 20, 2012, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to

7

comply with the instructions for service. (Doc. 11).

8
9

On August 24, 2012, the Clerk’s Office notified the Court that Plaintiff submitted the forms a
second time, but once again, Plaintiff failed to comply with the instructions. Plaintiff failed to

10

complete the USM-285 form and did not use the Summons issued by the Court. Further, Plaintiff

11

provided copies of only a portion of the First Amended Complaint, and copies of other extraneous

12

documents. Because the documents provided were insufficient for service, the Court issued an order

13

to Plaintiff on August 29, 2012, directing her to comply with the instructions for service. (Doc. 13).

14

The Court informed Plaintiff that failure to obey the Court’s order would result in dismissal of the

15

action pursuant to Local Rule 110. Id. at 2.

16

Plaintiff failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s order, and as a result the

17

Court issued an order to show cause for her failure on September 24, 2012. (Doc. 14). The Court

18

explained once again that failure of a party to comply with the Court’s orders may be grounds for

19

sanctions, including dismissal of the action. Therefore, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause why

20

the action should not be dismissed or, in the alternative, to file the documents identified with the

21

Clerk. Id. at 2.

22

On September 26, 2012, the Clerk’s office notified the Court that Plaintiff filed a third set of

23

incomplete service documents. For example, Plaintiff filed five copies of only page one of the First

24

Amended Complaint which she attached to page two of the Order directing her compliance. Again,

25

the documents provided were insufficient for service. In addition, Plaintiff again filed copies of other

26

documents not authorized for service by the Court. Therefore, on October 1, 2012, the Court issued an

27

order granting Plaintiff “one final opportunity to comply with the terms of the instructions for service

28

of the First Amended Complaint.” (Doc. 15 at 2) (emphasis in original). The Court reminded Plaintiff
2

1

an action may be dismissed “based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court

2

order, or failure to comply with local rules.” Id. (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61

3

(9th Cir. 1992); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987); Henderson v.

4

Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)).
On October 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed a response to the Court’s order to show cause, asserting she

5
6

submitted the documents required for service. (Doc. 16). Plaintiff explained: “I strongly feel that I

7

have been in compliance with the order and should be allowed to move forward.” Id.

8

II.

Failure to Prosecute and Obey the Court’s Orders
The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a

9
10

party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any

11

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” LR 110. “District courts have inherent

12

power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including

13

dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.

14

1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action

15

or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at

16

1260-61 dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone,

17

833 F.2d at 130 (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424

18

(dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

19

III.

20

Discussion and Analysis
In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court

21

order, the Court must consider several factors, including: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious

22

resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the

23

defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability

24

of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61;

25

Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831.

26

In the case at hand, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the

27

Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The risk of prejudice to the

28

defendant also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence
3

1

of unreasonable delay in prosecution of an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th

2

Cir. 1976). Although the First Amended Complaint was approved for service, Plaintiff has failed to

3

comply with the instructions for service for nearly three months without explanation. In addition,

4

Plaintiff has failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s order dated October 9, 2012.
Finally, the Court’s repeated warning to Plaintiff that failure to comply with the Court’s orders

5
6

would result in dismissal satisfies the requirement that the Court consider less drastic measures.

7

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. In the Order to Show Cause, the Court

8

warned that it “may dismiss an action with prejudice, based upon a party’s failure to prosecute an

9

action or failure to obey a court order . . . ” (Doc. 14 at 2). Similarly, in its order directing Plaintiff to

10

comply with the instructions for service dated October 1, 2012, the Court informed Plaintiff that if she

11

“fails to comply with this Order, the action will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order

12

pursuant to Local Rule 110.” (Doc. 15 at 3) (emphasis in original). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate

13

warning that dismissal would result from her failure to comply with the Court’s orders and the Local

14

Rules, and her failure to prosecute the action. Given these facts, the Court finds the policy favoring

15

disposition of cases on their merits is outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal.

16

IV.

Conclusion and Order
The factors set forth by Ninth Circuit weigh in favor of dismissal of the action. Therefore, the

17
18

Court is within its discretion to dismiss the action for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action and

19

failure to comply with the Court’s orders.

20

The Court does not issue this order lightly. However, Plaintiff refuses to follow the very basic

21

instructions given to her1 and without her doing so, the complaint cannot be served and the matter may

22

not move forward. She leaves the Court no option but to order the matter DISMISSED WITHOUT

23

PREJUDICE.

24

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

25

1.

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and

26
27
28

1

Because Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s instructions and orders is inexplicable given the harsh warnings
issued to her, the Court examined her documents to determine whether there was any indication she suffers from some
mental impairment which would prevent her from comprehending her situation. The Court has found no evidence this is
the case.

4

1

2.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this action, because this order terminates the
action in its entirety.

2
3
4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 30, 2012

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5