Martin v. Social Security Administration

Filing 20

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re Dismissal. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 5/3/2010 09:00 AM. Certification due by 4/23/2010. Failure to comply with any part of this Order will be deemed sufficient grounds to dismiss this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Signed by Judge James Ware on 4/7/2010. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Jose Martin, v. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 08-03135 JW ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Social Security Administration, Defendant. /

On June 30, 2009, upon Plaintiff's filing of his Complaint, the Court issued a Social Security Procedural Order. (hereafter, "Order," Docket Item No. 3.) The Court directed Defendant to file an Answer and Transcript within ninety days of the receipt of service and summons, and Plaintiff to serve and file a Motion for Summary Judgment within thirty days of Defendant's Answer. (Id.) On December 19, 2008, Defendant served and filed its Answer and Transcript. (See Docket Item Nos. 12, 13, 14.) Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment was due on January 20, 2009. To date, Plaintiff has neither filed his Motion nor otherwise communicate with the Court. The Court hereby orders Plaintiff to appear in Courtroom No. 8, 4th Floor, United States District Court, 280 South First Street, San Jose, Ca. on May 3, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. to show cause, if any, by actual appearance in Court, and by certification filed with the Court on or April 23, 2010,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.1 The certificate shall set forth in factual summary the reason no Summary Judgment Motion has been filed and what steps Plaintiff is taking to prosecute the action. If Plaintiff fails to file the certification, the May 3 hearing will be vacated automatically and the case will be dismissed. Failure to comply with any part of this Order will be deemed sufficient grounds to dismiss this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Dated: April 7, 2010

JAMES WARE United States District Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that a defendant may move for dismissal of an action for "failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court." However, although Rule 41(b) provides for dismissal on the motion of the defendant, the court may also dismiss an action sua sponte. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); see also Alexander v. Pacific Maritime Ass'n, 434 F.2d 281, 283-84 (9th Cir. 1970). 2
1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Leo Rufino Montenegro [e-mail] Jose Martin 4136 Lander Avenue Turlock, CA 95380

Dated: April 7, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28