Goss v. Colvin

Filing 15

ORDER TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION - by Judge J Richard Creatura. (SH) Modified on 6/21/2017 to indicate copy mailed to pro se plaintiff on this date. (SH)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

LISA ANN-MARIE GOSS,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

CASE NO. 2:16-CV-01888-JRC
ORDER TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF
PROSECUTION

v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.

12
13

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. 73 and

14

Local Magistrate Judge Rule MJR 13 (see also Notice of Initial Assignment to a U.S.

15

Magistrate Judge and Consent Form, Dkt. 6; Consent to Proceed Before a United States

16
17

Magistrate Judge, Dkt. 7).
This matter is before the Court on this Court’s Order to Show Cause, dated May

18

3, 2017 and mailed on May 4, 2017, why this matter should not be dismissed for failure
19

to follow the Court’s Scheduling Order. See Dkt. 14. Plaintiff was again provided
20
21
22
23
24

direction on what to include in her opening brief and she was ordered either to file her
opening brief or provide an explanation to the Court why she was not able to file her
brief. Id. Plaintiff has failed to file anything in response to this Court’s Order. For this
reason, this action shall be dismissed without prejudice.
ORDER TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION
-1

1
2
3
4
5

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Lisa Ann-Marie Goss, proceeding pro se filed her complaint in
December, 2016. See Dkts. 1, 3. Because plaintiff is proceeding pro se and was granted
in forma pauperis status (Dkt. 2), the Court directed service of the summons and
complaint. Dkt. 4. Following one motion for extension to file the answer (Dkt. 9), the

6

Acting Commissioner filed the Answer/Administrative Record on March 1, 2017. Dkt.
7

12. The Scheduling Order was filed and mailed to plaintiff on March 2, 2017. Dkt. 13.
8
9
10

This Order directed plaintiff to file an opening brief on or before March 31, 2017.
Plaintiff neither filed an opening brief nor asked the Court for more time to do so. This

11

Court issued an Order to Show Cause on May 3, 2017 and mailed the Order to plaintiff

12

on May 4, 2017. Dkt. 14. This Order stated in part:

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

(1)
Lisa Ann-Marie Goss, plaintiff, must submit to the Court by June 2, 2017
an opening brief explaining what the ALJ did wrong, with citations to the
Administrative Record, what evidence supports plaintiff’s position, and why the
ALJ’s error was harmful, and also must follow the requirements noted in the
Scheduling Order (see Dkt. 13).
(2)
If plaintiff does not file or cannot file an opening brief, she must explain
why the case should not be dismissed for failing to follow the Court’s scheduling
order. She must submit this explanation to the Court no later than June 2, 2017.
(3)
If plaintiff files an opening brief or explains why she failed to follow the
scheduling order, the Acting Commissioner shall file a response by June 30, 2017.
(4)
If plaintiff does not file an opening brief or does not explain why she failed
to follow the scheduling order, the case shall be dismissed.
(5)
The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff at the last
known address.
The Court directs plaintiff to the Court’s website, which includes
information for pro se litigants, such as the Pro Se Guide to Filing Your Lawsuit
in Federal Court, which includes resources for potentially finding legal advice:
(6)

ORDER TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION
-2

1

http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself-pro-se (last visited May 1,
2017). See “Resources That May Help You” located at Pro Se Guide, pp. 35-37.

2
3

Id., pp. 3-4.
DISCUSSION

4
5

The Court is not to dismiss the action before consideration of the merits if there

6

are “other less drastic alternatives . . . available,”, due to plaintiff’s pro se status. See

7

Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Nevijel v. North Coast Life

8

Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (1981)). The Court provided notice to plaintiff that this

9

matter would be dismissed for lack of prosecution if plaintiff failed to follow the Court’s

10

order and file an opening brief. Dkt. 14. Plaintiff has not filed anything since January 10,

11

2017, when she filed her consent form. See Dkt. 7.

12
13

CONCLUSION
Since plaintiff has failed to abide by this Court’s scheduling orders and has failed

14

to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed, this matter is dismissed without
15

prejudice, for lack of prosecution and the case is closed.
16
17
18
19

The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff at her last known
address.
Dated this 21st day of June, 2017.

A

20
21

J. Richard Creatura
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
ORDER TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION
-3