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