Castro v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
10
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Dismissing This Case for Failure to Follow a Court Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/8/17. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RICHARD CASTRO,
16-cv-1390 LJO GSA
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
17
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DISMISSING THIS CASE FOR FAILULRE
TO FOLLOW A COURT ORDER
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
18
19
On September 20, 2016, pro se Plaintiff Richard Castro (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint
20
requesting a review of the Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits. (Doc. 1). After
21
screening Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court dismissed the case with leave to file an amended
22
complaint. Plaintiff was advised that any amended complaint shall be filed no later than October
23
30, 2016, and that failure to timely file an amended complaint would result in dismissal of this
24
25
action. (Doc. 4, pg. 5). On October 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to
file the amended complaint. (Doc. 5). The Court granted Plaintiff’s request and ordered that any
26
27
28
amended complaint be filed no later than December 2, 2016. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff was again
advised that failure to file an amended complaint by December 2, 2016 may result in dismissal of
1
1
the case. Id. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint as ordered. Based on Plaintiff’s failures
2
to file an amended complaint this Court, on February 16, 2017, issued an Order to Show Cause
3
Why this Case Should not be Dismissed (“OSC”) (Doc. 9). Plaintiff was ordered to file a
4
response to the OSC within fourteen (14) days. To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the
5
6
7
Court’s order.
Rule 110 of this Court’s Local Rules provides that the “failure of counsel or of a party to
8
comply … with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all
9
sanctions … within the inherent power of the Court.” This Court has the inherent power to
10
11
manage its docket. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may
dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey
12
13
14
a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54
(9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,
15
1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of
16
complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to
17
comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Henderson v.
18
19
Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to
comply with local rules).
20
21
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a
22
court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the
23
public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket;
24
(3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on
25
their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Ferdik,
26
27
28
963 F.2d at 1260-61; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24.
Here, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and
2
1
the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal because there is no
2
indication that the Plaintiff intends to prosecute this action. For example, Plaintiff was given an
3
4
extension of over sixty days to file an amended complaint, and to date, Plaintiff has still not done
so. (Doc. 6). Similarly, Plaintiff has not responded to this Court’s OSC. (Doc. 9).
5
6
The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because
7
a presumption of injury arises from any unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v.
8
Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition
9
of cases on their merits, is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal. Finally, a
10
11
12
13
14
court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies
the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Henderson, 779 F.2d
at 1424. Here, the order dismissing his case with leave to amend, the order granting Plaintiff’s
motion for an extension of time, and the OSC advised Plaintiff that a failure to respond would
15
result in dismissal of this action. (Doc. 4; pgs.5-6; Doc. 6; Doc. 9, pgs. 2-3). Given Plaintiff’s
16
numerous failures to comply with the Court’s orders, no lesser sanction is available.
17
18
19
RECOMMENDATION
In light of the above, the Court RECOMMENDS that his case be DISMISSED for
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order, and for failure to prosecute this action.
20
21
These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this
22
action, pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code § 636(b)(1)(B). Within fourteen (14) days
23
of service of this recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections to these findings and
24
recommendations with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to
25
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the
26
magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendations pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code
27
section 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time
28
3
1
may waive the right to appeal the district judge’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F. 3d 834, 839
2
(9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F. 2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991); Martinez v. Ylst,
3
951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
4
5
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
March 8, 2017
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?