Dezjole Washington v. US Government et al
Filing
26
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, on or before May 31, 2012, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff may satisfy the order to show cause by filin g a notice of substitution of counsel reflecting new representation or, alternatively, Plaintiffs appearance pro se. The clerk of the court is directed to attempt to serve this order on Plaintiff at both of her prior known addresses, indicated below. (lmh)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV11-3679-CW
Title
Dezjole Washington v. Michael J. Astrue (Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin.)
Present: The
Honorable
Date
May 1, 2012
Carla Woehrle, United States Magistrate Judge
Donna Y. Thomas
n/a
n/a
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter / Recorder
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
n/a
n/a
Proceedings:
(In Chambers)
On March 27, 2012, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion seeking to
withdraw as counsel of record in this matter. [Docket no. 23.] In the
motion, counsel indicated that she informed Plaintiff by letter and
telephone that she was filing the motion to withdraw, that Plaintiff
initially indicated she was seeking another attorney’s opinion, that
Plaintiff did not respond to any of counsel’s attempts to contact her
after March 8, 2012, and that at about that time Plaintiff’s telephone
number was no longer valid. [Id.]
On March 28, 2012, the court issued a minute order by which
Plaintiff was given until April 16, 2012, to file a response to
counsel’s motion, and the clerk of the court was directed to serve a
copy of the order directly on Plaintiff at her last known address.
[Docket no. 24.] On April 10, 2012, the copy of the minute order to be
served on Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable. Counsel’s motion to
withdraw was granted, and counsel was directed to provide the court
with any updated contact information for Plaintiff before April 25,
2012. [Docket no. 25.] The allotted time has elapsed, and counsel has
not submitted any supplemental contact information for Plaintiff. Nor
has Plaintiff filed a notice indicating she has retained new counsel
or wishes to proceed pro se, or otherwise communicated with the court.
It is well established that district courts have authority to
dismiss actions for failure to prosecute or to comply with court
orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d
1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010)(standard applied in dismissal for failure
to prosecute); Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82
S. Ct. 1386, 8 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1962)(dismissal for failure to prosecute
to avoid undue delay or congestion in court calendars); Ferdik v.
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure
to comply with any court order). Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO
SHOW CAUSE, in writing, on or before May 31, 2012, why this action
should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff may
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV11-3679-CW
Date
May 1, 2012
Title
Dezjole Washington v. Michael J. Astrue (Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin.)
satisfy the order to show cause by filing a notice of substitution of
counsel reflecting new representation or, alternatively, Plaintiff’s
appearance pro se. The clerk of the court is directed to attempt to
serve this order on Plaintiff at both of her prior known addresses,
indicated below.
cc:
Dezjole Washington
2415 W 6th St.
Los Angeles, CA 90057
Dezjole Washington
4531 E. Madison Ave.
Fresno, CA 93737
Assistant US Attorney LA-CV
AUSA - Office of US Attorney
Civil Division
300 North Los Angeles Street Suite 7516
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Susan L Smith
SAUSA - Office of US Attorney
US Department of Justice
160 Spear Street
Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94105
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2
]]>
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?
