(SS) Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2016cv01253 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss this 2 Action without Prejudice for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with a Court Order and Failure to Prosecute; Objections, if any, Due within Fourteen Days signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 12/26/2017. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 JOHN T. JOHNSON, 8 Plaintiff, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 1:16-cv-01253-AWI-EPG FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS THIS ACTION WITHOUT v. PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER AND NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner FAILURE TO PROSECUTE of Social Security, (ECF Nos. 7, 23) Defendant. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS Plaintiff John T. Johnson, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, commenced this action on August 24, 2016, requesting a review of the Commissioner’s denial of his claim for disability benefits under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq. and 1381 et seq. (ECF No. 2). On August 26, 2016, the Court entered a scheduling order requiring Plaintiff to file an opening brief within 95 days after service of the administrative record. (ECF No. 7). Defendant lodged the administrative record on January 3, 2017. (ECF No. 18). Plaintiff failed to file his opening brief within 95 days thereafter, before April 9, 2017. On August 15, 2017, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause, directing Plaintiff to file a written response to the order within 10 days. Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause. Therefore, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110 (“F]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 1 1 or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all 2 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 3 629-30 (1962) (“The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has 4 generally been considered an ‘inherent power’. . . .”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260- 5 61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). Nevertheless, dismissal is 6 a harsh penalty that should be imposed only in extreme circumstances. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 7 831. 8 9 To determine whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order, the court must weigh several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 10 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 11 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 12 availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831. This multi-factor test is “not 13 mechanical,” Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 14 (9th Cir. 2007), and the court “need not make explicit findings regarding each of these factors,” 15 Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 958 (9th Cir. 2006). 16 The first two of the five factors favor the dismissal in most cases, while the fourth cuts 17 against dismissal. See Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990); Adriana Int'l 18 Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1412 (9th Cir.1990). This is true for this case as well. The 19 public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing 20 the docket weigh in favor of dismissal because the case has been pending since August 24, 21 2016. Plaintiff has shown no interest in participating in the litigation any further. However, the 22 public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits cuts against dismissal. 23 The risk of prejudice to Defendant also weighs in favor of dismissal. “[T]he pendency 24 of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Pagtalunan v. 25 Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “[a] defendant suffers prejudice if the 26 plaintiff’s actions impair the defendant’s ability to go to trial or threaten to interfere with the 27 rightful decision of the case.” Adriana Int'l Corp., 913 F.2d at 1412. Furthermore, a 28 presumption of injury arises from any unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. 2 1 Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). This case cannot proceed until Plaintiff identifies 2 his legal claims in an opening brief. The deadline for Plaintiff to file an opening brief was over 3 eight months ago. Defendant remains unable to defend this action as the case is stalled until 4 Plaintiff files an opening brief. 5 Finally, a court’s warning to a party that her failure to obey the court’s order will result 6 in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 7 Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s August 15, 2017 Order to Show Cause warned 8 Plaintiff that this case may be dismissed if he failed to respond to the Order. (ECF No. 23.) 9 Almost four months have passed since the 10-day deadline for Plaintiff to file a response to the 10 Order to Show Cause. Plaintiff, however, has failed to offer any explanation for his delay or 11 refusal to prosecute this case. There are few sanctions that could compel a plaintiff to prosecute 12 an action that he or she is simply uninterested in pursuing. Thus, the fifth factor—the 13 availability of less drastic alternatives—also weighs in favor of dismissal. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED, 15 without prejudice, for Plaintiffs’ failure to failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the 16 Court’s August 15, 2017 Order to Show Cause. 17 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 18 Judge assigned to this case pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 of the United States Code 19 section 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and 20 recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the Court. The document should 21 be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties 22 are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal 23 the District Court’s order. Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2015). 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 26, 2017 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 3

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.