Pacheco v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

ORDER DISMISSING the Action with Prejudice for Plaintiff's Failure to Prosecute and Failure to Comply with the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/24/2017. CASE CLOSED. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARIA NORMA RUIZ PACHECO,

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14

NANCY A. BERRYHILL1,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

15
Defendant.
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00813 - JLT
ORDER DISMISSING THE ACTION WITH
PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THE COURT’S ORDER

Maria Norma Ruiz Pacheco initiated this action seeking judicial review of the administrative

18

decision to deny her application for Social Security benefits. However, Plaintiff failed to comply with

19

the Court’s orders and failed to prosecute this action by filing an opening brief. Accordingly, the action

20

is DISMISSED with prejudice.

21

I.

22

Background
Maria Norma Ruiz Pacheco initiated this action by filing a complaint on June 10, 2016, seeking

23

judicial review of the decision to denying her application for Social Security benefits. (Doc. 1) On

24

June 20, 2016, the Court entered its Scheduling Order, setting forth the applicable deadlines. (Doc. 4)

25

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the parties exchanged confidential letter briefs, with Defendant

26
27
1

28

Nancy A. Berryhill is now the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court substitutes Nancy A. Berryhill for her predecessor, Carolyn W. Colvin, as the
defendant.

1

1

serving the Commissioner’s response on April 5, 2017. (Docs. 14, 15)
In the Court’s Scheduling Order, Plaintiff was ordered to file an opening brief addressing “each

2
3

claimed error” by the administrative law judge within thirty days of the date of service of the

4

Commissioner’s response. (See Doc. 4 at 2, explaining the applicable briefing deadlines) Accordingly,

5

Plaintiff was to file an opening brief in this action no later than May 5, 2017. (See id.) However, she

6

failed to file an opening brief, and did not request an extension of time.
The Court issued an order to show cause on May 10, 2017, directing Plaintiff “to show cause

7
8

within ten days of the date of service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for her

9

failure to prosecute or to follow the Court’s Order, or in the alternative to file an opening brief.” (Doc.

10

16 at 2) More than ten days have passed, Plaintiff has not responded to the order to show cause, or filed

11

an opening brief.

12

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

13
14

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

15

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

16

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

17

including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

18

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute

19

an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v.

20

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order);

21

Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with

22

a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to

23

prosecute and to comply with local rules).

24

III.

25

Discussion and Analysis
To determine whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a Court

26

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

27

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

28

defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability
2

1

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

2

Thomspon, 782 F.2d at 831.

3

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

4

interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d

5

983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors

6

dismissal”); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (recognizing that district courts have inherent interest in

7

managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). This Court cannot, and will

8

not hold, this action in abeyance given Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the deadlines set forth by the

9

Court and failure to prosecute. See Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991)

10

(explaining a plaintiff has the burden “to move toward... disposition at a reasonable pace”). The risk of

11

prejudice to the defendant also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from

12

the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecution of an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d

13

522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).

14

Notably, Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the scheduling order “may result in

15

sanctions.” (Doc. 4 at 4) In addition, in the Order to Show Cause, the Court reminded Plaintiff that an

16

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

17

order.” (Doc. 16 at 2) In addition, the Court advised: “If Plaintiff fails to comply with the deadline

18

as ordered, the Court will find that Plaintiff has abandoned the action, and dismiss the matter.”

19

(Id., emphasis in original) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from her

20

noncompliance with the Court’s orders and failure to prosecute the action by filing an opening brief,

21

and these warnings satisfy the requirement that the Court consider less drastic measures. Ferdik, 963

22

F.2d at 1262; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. Indeed, the Court need only warn a party once that the

23

matter would be dismissed for failure to comply with its orders. Id.; see also Titus v. Mercedes Benz

24

of North America, 695 F.2d 746, 749 n.6 (3d Cir. 1982) (identifying a “warning” to a party is an

25

alternative sanction).

26

Given these facts, the policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits is outweighed by the

27

factors in favor of dismissal. See Malone, 833 F.2d at 133, n.2 (explaining that although “the public

28

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits . . . weighs against dismissal, it is not sufficient to
3

1

outweigh the other four factors”).

2

IV.

3

Conclusion and Order
Plaintiff failed to comply with the deadlines imposed by the Court, and failed to prosecute the

4

action by filing an opening brief. As set forth above, the factors set forth by the Ninth Circuit weigh in

5

favor of dismissal of the matter. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

6

1.

Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice; and

7

2.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this action, as this order terminates the

8

matter in its entirety.

9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 24, 2017

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4