Lewis v. Social Security
Filing
14
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 6/20/11 ORDERING that this action is reopened. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed with prejudice re 3 Complaint. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Matson, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
MATTHEW LEWIS,
11
12
Plaintiff,
CIV S-01-0104 WBS GGH
vs.
13
14
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
15
ORDER AND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendant.
__________________________________/
16
17
Presently before the court is defendant’s motion to dismiss this ten (10) year old
18
case for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), but it is based on a failure to
19
prosecute. A failure to prosecute is a Fed.R.Civ.P 41(b) motion, and the court decides on this
20
basis (see footnote 2 herein). Plaintiff has filed no response.1 Having reviewed the motion, the
21
court now issues the following findings and recommendations.
22
BACKGROUND
23
24
After plaintiff initiated this action in federal court based on the ALJ’s decision
terminating benefits, as affirmed by the Appeals Council, defendant Commissioner was unable to
25
26
1
This matter was taken under submission without oral argument.
1
1
locate the claim file and hearing tape from the ALJ’s administrative hearing. Such would have
2
been necessary to adjudicate this case in federal court on the “old” record. After a stipulated
3
“Sentence Six” (42 U.S.C. 405(g)) remand to locate this evidence, the Commissioner could not
4
locate the necessary materials. Therefore, a new administrative hearing was noticed as ordered;
5
however, plaintiff did not appear at the hearing, and according to the Commissioner, the notice of
6
hearing was not returned as undeliverable. Upon issuance of a notice to show cause, the notice
7
sent by certified mail was returned as undeliverable while the notice sent by regular mail was not
8
returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff’s counsel appeared at a rescheduled hearing; however,
9
plaintiff did not appear. His counsel represented that he had been unable to locate plaintiff.
10
Based on plaintiff’s refusal to accept certified mail, but receipt of regular mail, the ALJ
11
concluded that plaintiff had abandoned his hearing request and dismissed the request for hearing,
12
holding that the original August 12, 1997 determination remained in effect.
13
The Commissioner filed this motion to dismiss nearly ten years after the case had
14
been remanded.
15
DISCUSSION
16
Under Sentence Six, the court retains jurisdiction awaiting the Commissioner to
17
file the post-remand results. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 298-99, 113 S.Ct. 2625,
18
2629-30 (1993). Therefore, the court retained jurisdiction when it remanded the case under
19
Sentence Six, and maintains it to this day. The unopposed facts as presented by the
20
Commissioner indicate that plaintiff has abandoned his claim, and therefore this action must be
21
dismissed for failure to prosecute.
22
All Social Security claimants are required to adhere to the Social Security
23
Regulations regarding appearances at hearing. See 20 CFR §§ 404.957(b)(1); 416.1457(b)(1).
24
Failure to appear at a scheduled administrative hearing may result in dismissal of a request for
25
hearing where the ALJ finds no good cause for failure to appear. Id. Plaintiff has an affirmative
26
duty to prosecute this action, and failure to do so is grounds for dismissal for lack of prosecution.
2
1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
2
When considering whether to dismiss a case for lack of
prosecution, the district court must weigh the court’s need to
manage its docket, the public interest in expeditious resolution of
litigation, and the risk of prejudice to the defendants against the
policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and the
availability of less drastic sanctions.
3
4
5
6
Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984).
7
“Only ‘unreasonable’ delay will support a dismissal for lack of prosecution.” Id.
8
9
On July 27, 2001, the district court ordered that the case be remanded for either a
search and retrieval of the hearing tape or a de novo hearing. Plaintiff’s refusal to appear for
10
hearing certainly violated the intent of that order such that this case could be ultimately
11
adjudicated. In addition, as noted previously, plaintiff has filed no opposition to the
12
Commissioner’s motion. The Commissioner is clearly prejudiced by the requirement of
13
defending an abandoned case, and this court is put in the untenable position of expending limited
14
judicial resources to decide such a case on the merits. The public’s interest in expeditious
15
resolution of litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, and the unsuitability of a less
16
drastic sanction, direct that this case be dismissed. Clearly, the delay occasioned by plaintiff’s
17
lack of participation in his administrative proceedings has been unreasonable. While the court is
18
not clear why it took the Commissioner ten years to figure out that plaintiff was failing to
19
prosecute, plaintiff has done nothing to prosecute his claim since the order of remand.
20
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this action is reopened.
21
IT IS RECOMMENDED this action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to
22
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).2
23
24
25
26
2
The court decides on the failure to prosecute ground because it is much more correct than
the jurisdictional grounds argued in the Commissioner’s motion. The Commissioner first argues that
the ten year delay means there is “no case or controversy.” However, no specific authority is cited
that delay in prosecution robs the court of jurisdiction on standing grounds. The failure to exhaust
administrative remedies is also problematic. Plaintiff initially did exhaust administrative remedies,
3
1
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
2
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within
3
fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may
4
file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be
5
captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the
6
objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The
7
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
8
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
9
DATED: June 20, 2011
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
10
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
GGH:076/Lewis0104.dis.wpd
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
and it is unclear that failure to participate in a Sentence Six remand is the failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. It was really non-exhaustion of the court order which was at issue.
Certainly the Commissioner has cited no exhaustion authority specific to Sentence Six remands.
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?