Carlos Hernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 9

Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal of case for failure to prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 4/6/2015. Matter referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due by 4/24/2015. (Rosales, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
CARLOS HERNANDEZ,

Case No. 1:15-cv-00110-LJO-SMS

10
Plaintiff,
11
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CASE FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

12
13
14

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant.

15
16
17
18

On January 22, 2015, Plaintiff Carlos Hernandez, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint
seeking review of the Commissioner's denial of his application for unspecified disability benefits
under the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq.) (the "Act"). On February 2, 2015, after

19
20
21

screening the complaint, the Court dismissed it with leave to amend within thirty (30) days to
provide certain omitted information. Plaintiff neither filed an amended complaint nor responded

22

in any other way. As a result, on March 10, 2015, the Court issued an order to show cause within

23

fifteen days why this case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to follow a court order.

24

Again, Plaintiff did not respond in any way.

25

The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that

26
power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los
27
28

Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action,

1

1

the Court must weigh A(1) the public=s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the

2

court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy

3

favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.@ In

4
re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir.
5
6

2006), quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987).
Based on Plaintiff=s failure to comply with or otherwise respond to the above orders, the

7
8

Court is left with no alternative but to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. Id. This action

9

cannot proceed without Plaintiff=s cooperation and compliance with the orders at issue.

10
11

Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that this action be DISMISSED without
prejudice for failure to follow the Court's orders.

12
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Lawrence J. O'Neill,

13
14

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

15

Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

16

California. Within fifteen (15) days after being served with a copy, Plaintiff may file written

17

objections with the court, which should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

18

and Recommendations.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28

19
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff advised that failure to file objections within the specified time
20
21
22

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.
1991).

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 6, 2015

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2