Hart v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
9
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 10/11/17 ORDEREDING that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a District Judge to this action; RECOMMENDEDING that complaint be dismissed without prejudice. F&R referred to District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SHAQUIOA HART,
12
13
14
15
16
No. 2:17-cv-0285 DB
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER AND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
17
18
On February 27, 2017, the undersigned granted plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma
19
pauperis and ordered plaintiff to submit to the United States Marshal the documents necessary for
20
service of process. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff was also ordered to file in this court a declaration
21
stating the date on which the documents were submitted to the United States Marshal within five
22
days after submitting those documents.
23
On March 20, 2017, plaintiff filed such a declaration. (ECF No. 6.) However, on March
24
27, 2017, plaintiff filed a request for new documents for service, stating that the United States
25
Marshal’s Office informed plaintiff that she did not submit a complete packet. (ECF No. 7.)
26
New service documents were sent to plaintiff the following day.
27
However, after plaintiff failed to file an updated declaration stating the date on which
28
service documents were submitted to the United States Marshal, on September 13, 2017, the
1
1
undersigned issued an order to show cause, ordering plaintiff to show cause in writing within 21
2
days as to why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (ECF No. 8.) The 21-
3
day period has passed and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order in any manner.
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 timely declaration stating the date on which service
21
documents were submitted to the United States Marshal, possibly because plaintiff did not submit
22
such service documents to the United States Marshal. Accordingly, the undersigned issued an
23
order to show cause that provided plaintiff with an opportunity to show good cause for plaintiff’s
24
conduct. Plaintiff failed to respond to that order in any way. The order to show cause
25
specifically warned plaintiff that the failure to respond to that order could result in the dismissal
26
of this action.
27
28
Plaintiff’s lack of prosecution of this case renders the imposition of monetary sanctions
futile. Moreover, the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s need to
2
1
manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice to the defendant all support the imposition of the
2
sanction of dismissal. Only the public policy favoring disposition on the merits counsels against
3
dismissal. However, plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action in any way makes disposition on
4
the merits an impossibility. The undersigned will therefore recommend that this action be
5
dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute as well as plaintiff’s failure to comply with the
6
court’s orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
7
8
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a
District Judge to this action.
9
Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Plaintiff’s February 10, 2017 complaint (ECF No. 1) be dismissed without prejudice;
10
11
and
12
2. This action be closed.
13
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
14
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14)
15
days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written
16
objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to
17
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
18
objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal
19
the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
20
Dated: October 11, 2017
21
22
23
24
25
DLB:6
DB\orders\orders.soc sec\hart0285.dlop.f&rs
26
27
28
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?