-JLT (SS) Saad v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2011cv00642 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Dismissing the 1 Action With Prejudice For Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to Comply With the Court's Order; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of the Court to Assign a United States District Judge to Case, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/7/2011. Objections Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-JLT (SS) Saad v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEBORAH A. SAAD, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:11-cv-00642-JLT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING THE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO ASSIGN A UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE TO CASE Deborah A. Saad (“Plaintiff”) seeks to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se with an 18 action seeking judicial review of a determination of the Social Security Administration. Plaintiff 19 commenced this action on April 22, 2011. (Doc. 1). For the following reasons, the Court 20 recommends Plaintiff’s action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 21 I. Procedural History 22 On April 28, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, 23 and dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. (Doc. 3). On May 17, the Court 24 granted Plaintiff’s request to amend her complaint and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended 25 complaint within twenty-one days of the date of service, and to attach a copy of the notice 26 received from the Appeals Council in order for the Court to determine whether it has jurisdiction 27 over the matter. (Doc. 5 at 4). 28 Following Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order, on June 16, 2011 the Court 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 issued an order to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed, or in the alternative to file 2 an amended complaint with the notice as ordered previously. (Doc. 6 at 2). Plaintiff was ordered 3 to respond within twenty-one days of service, or by July 1, 2011. To date, Plaintiff has failed to 4 comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s order. 5 II. Jurisdiction 6 Plaintiff alleged: “On or about March 21, 2011 I a document entitled ‘NOTICE OF 7 APPEALS COUNCIL ACTION’ dated February 12, 2010 further indicating that my case was 8 being denied and the Administrative Law Decision if final.” (Doc. 4 at 2). Therefore, it is not 9 clear when the decision was made by the Appeals Council, or when Plaintiff received notice of 10 the decision. The Court is only able to discern that a final decision has been made on her case. 11 The Court has limited jurisdiction to review decisions regarding Social Security benefits 12 and the denial of disability claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which provides in relevant 13 part: 14 15 16 Any individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of such decision or within such further time as the Commissioner may allow. Such action shall be brought in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides, or has his principal place of business . . . 17 18 Id. (emphasis added). Except as provided by statute, “[n]o findings of fact or decision of the 19 Commissioner shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency.” 42 U.S.C. § 20 405(h). These regulations “operate as a statute of limitations setting the time period in which a 21 claimant may appeal a final decision of the Commissioner.” Berrigan v. Astrue, 2010 U.S. Dist. 22 LEXIS 115390, at * 4-5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2010), citing Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 23 467, 479 (1986); Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 328 n. 9 (1976). The time limit is a 24 condition on the waiver of sovereign immunity, and it must be strictly construed. Id. 25 Previously, this Court previously stated, “The limitations to final decisions and to a sixty- 26 day filing period serve to compress the time for judicial review and to limit judicial review to the 27 original decision denying benefits, thereby forestalling repetitive or belated litigation of stale 28 eligibility claims.” Anderson v. Astrue, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79726, at *8-9 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2 1 2008). Because it is not clear whether Plaintiff filed this action after this deadline passed, the 2 Court is unable to review the decision of the Commissioner. 3 III. Failure to Obey the Court’s Order 4 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or 5 of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the 6 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” LR 110. “District 7 courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may 8 impose sanctions including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los 9 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based 10 on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply 11 with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal 12 for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal 13 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); 14 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute 15 and to comply with local rules). 16 In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to obey a court order or failure to 17 comply with the Local Rules, the court must consider several factors, including: “(1) the public’s 18 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the 19 risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 20 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see 21 also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Thomspon, 782 F.2d at 831. 22 In the case at hand, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 23 Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The risk of prejudice to the 24 defendant also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the 25 occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecution of an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 26 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits is 27 outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal. Notably, the Court was unable to determine 28 whether it had jurisdiction over the matter due to Plaintiff’s failure to file the notice or an 3 1 amended complaint. (Docs. 5-6). In the order to show cause, the Court informed Plaintiff that 2 failure to comply with a court order may result in dismissal of an action. (Doc. 6 at 2). Thus, 3 Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from her noncompliance with the 4 Court’s order. 5 IV. Order 6 GOOD CAUSE being established therefor, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows: 7 The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a United States District Judge to this case. 8 9 V. Findings and Recommendations For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds it is unable to determine whether it has 10 jurisdiction of the action. Moreover, Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order to show 11 cause why the matter should not be dismissed for her failure to prosecute or to follow the Court’s 12 order. Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED: 13 Plaintiff’s Complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 14 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 15 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 16 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 17 Within FOURTEEN (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any 18 party may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned 19 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that 20 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 21 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: July 7, 2011 9j7khi /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
