Valentine v Social Security Administration
Filing
6
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 3/9/2017 ORDERING 3 that the hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is VACATED; and the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED without prejudice as having been RENDERED MOOT; RECOMMENDING that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice; and this action be closed; Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these F & R's. (Reader, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DESHAYLA VALENTINE,
12
13
14
15
16
No. 2:17-cv-0051 KJM DB PS
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
17
18
19
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was, therefore, referred to the
undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
20
On January 17, 2017, defendant filed a motion to dismiss and noticed that motion for
21
hearing before the undersigned on February 17, 2017. (ECF No. 3.) Pursuant to Local Rule
22
230(c) plaintiff was to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion
23
“not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed . . . hearing date.” Plaintiff, however,
24
failed to file a timely opposition or statement of non-opposition.
25
Accordingly, on February 9, 2017, the undersigned issued an order to show cause in
26
writing within fourteen days as to why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
27
(ECF No. 4.) The order to show cause also ordered plaintiff to file a statement of opposition or
28
non-opposition to defendant’s motion on or before March 3, 2017. Plaintiff was cautioned that
1
1
failure to file a written response to that order could result in the undersigned recommending that
2
this matter be dismissed. (Id. at 2.) Nonetheless, the time provided plaintiff has expired and
3
plaintiff has not responded to the order to show cause in any way.
4
5
ANALYSIS
The factors to be weighed in determining whether to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution
6
are as follows: (1) the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need
7
to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy favoring
8
disposition on the merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Hernandez v. City of
9
El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 398 (9th Cir. 1998); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.
10
1992); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). Dismissal is a harsh penalty that
11
should be imposed only in extreme circumstances. Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 398; Ferdik, 963 F.2d
12
at 1260.
13
Failure of a party to comply with the any order of the court “may be grounds for
14
imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the
15
inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. Any individual representing himself or herself
16
without an attorney is nonetheless bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local
17
Rules, and all applicable law. Local Rule 183(a). A party’s failure to comply with applicable
18
rules and law may be grounds for dismissal or any other sanction appropriate under the Local
19
Rules. Id.
20
Here, plaintiff failed to file a statement of opposition or non-opposition to defendant’s
21
motion to dismiss. The undersigned issued an order to show cause that provided plaintiff with an
22
opportunity to show good cause for plaintiff’s conduct, along with a further opportunity to oppose
23
defendant’s motion. Plaintiff failed to respond to that order in any way. The order to show cause
24
specifically warned plaintiff that the failure to file a written response to that order could result in a
25
recommendation that this matter be dismissed.
26
Plaintiff’s lack of prosecution of this case renders the imposition of monetary sanctions
27
futile. Moreover, the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s need to
28
manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice to the defendant all support the imposition of the
2
1
sanction of dismissal. Only the public policy favoring disposition on the merits counsels against
2
dismissal. However, plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action in any way makes disposition on
3
the merits an impossibility. The undersigned will therefore recommend that this action be
4
dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute as well as plaintiff’s failure to comply with the
5
court’s orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
6
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
7
1) The March 17, 2017 hearing of defendant’s motion is vacated; and
8
2) Defendant’s January 17, 2017 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 3) is denied without
9
prejudice as having been rendered moot.1
10
Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
11
1) Plaintiff’s November 28, 2016 complaint (ECF No. 1-1) be dismissed without
12
prejudice; and
13
2) This action be closed.
14
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
15
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
16
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
17
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
18
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections
19
shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are
20
advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the
21
District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
22
Dated: March 9, 2017
23
24
25
DLB:6
DB\orders\orders.pro se\valentine0051.dlop.f&rs
26
27
28
1
In the event the assigned District Judge does not adopt these findings and recommendation,
defendant may re-notice its motion to dismiss for hearing before the undersigned.
3
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?