Hicks v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
25
ORDER DISMISSING ENTIRE ACTION for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with Court Order and Failure to Prosecute; ORDER Directing Clerk to Enter Judgment and Administratively Close Case signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 06/17/2011. CASE CLOSED. (Flores, E)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
RICHARD A. HICKS,
8
9
10
11
1:10-cv-00515-SMS
ORDER DISMISSING ENTIRE
ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
COURT ORDER AND FAILURE
TO PROSECUTE
(Doc. 24)
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social
Security,
12
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO
ENTER JUDGMENT AND
ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE CASE
Defendant.
/
13
14
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with
15
this action seeking judicial review of a final decision of the
16
Commissioner of Social Security that denied, in whole or in part,
17
his claim for benefits under the Social Security Act.
18
to the consent of the parties (Docs. 8 & 10), and 28 U.S.C.
19
§ 636(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b), and Local Rule 301, the matter
20
has been referred to the Magistrate Judge to conduct all further
21
proceedings, including the entry of a final judgment.
22
Pursuant
On May 12, 2011, plaintiff was ordered to file his opening
23
brief by June 13, 2011, with or without the assistance of
24
counsel, utilizing specific guidelines provided therein.
25
Plaintiff was also advised that failure to timely file his
26
opening brief would result in outright dismissal of this entire
27
action.
28
otherwise contacted the Court.
To date, plaintiff has not filed his opening brief or
1
1
Local Rule 110 provides that “...failure of counsel or of a
2
party to comply with these Local Rules or with any order of the
3
Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and
4
all sanctions...within the inherent power of the Court.”
5
District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets
6
and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions
7
including, where appropriate...dismissal of a case.”
8
Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).
9
dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to
10
prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to
11
comply with local rules.
12
53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local
13
rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)
14
(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring
15
amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41
16
(9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule
17
requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address);
18
Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)
19
(dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v.
20
Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for
21
failure to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local
22
rules).
Thompson v.
A court may
See, e.g. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,
23
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of
24
prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply
25
with local rules, the court must consider several factors:
26
the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation;
27
(2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of
28
prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring
2
(1)
1
disposition of cases on their merits; and, (5) the availability
2
of less drastic alternatives.
3
Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik,
4
963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831;
5
In this case, the Court finds that the public’s interest in
6
expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest
7
in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal.
8
factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of
9
dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the
The third
10
occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action.
11
Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).
12
fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on
13
their merits, is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of
14
dismissal discussed herein.
15
party that failure to obey the court’s order may result in
16
dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives”
17
requirement.
18
at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424.
The
Finally, a court’s warning to a
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833
19
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
20
1.
This action is DISMISSED in its entirety for
21
plaintiff’s failure to comply with an order of the Court and for
22
failure to prosecute; and,
23
2.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment and
24
administratively close the case.
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
Dated:
icido3
June 17, 2011
/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?
