Opinion
Audrey D. Carter, Plaintiff, Pro se, Compton, CA.
For Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant: Ellinor Ravenel Coder, LEAD ATTORNEY, SAUSA - Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA; Assistant U.S. Attorney LA-CV, Office of U.S. Attorney, Civil Division, Los Angeles, CA; Assistant U.S. Attorney LA-SSA, Office of the General Counsel for Social Security Adm., San Francisco, CA.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
ALKA SAGAR, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff filed this Social Security action on May 19, 2014. (Docket Entry No. 3). Thereafter, the parties consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. (Docket Entry Nos. 9-10). Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint and the Certified Administrative Record on October 9, 2014. (Docket Entry Nos. 13-14).
On January 9, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff's Request for Approval of Substitution of Attorney, to substitute Plaintiff, in pro se, for her attorney. (See Docket Entry Nos. 17-18). On the same date, the Court issued a Minute Order modifying the Order Re: Procedures in Social Security Case (Docket No. 7) inter alia to relieve the parties of their respective obligations to file a Joint Statement in this matter and to order Plaintiff to file a Motion for Summary Judgment no later than March 10, 2015. (See Docket No. 3 19).
On April 30, 2015, following Plaintiff's failure to file a Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court issued Plaintiff an Order to Show Cause, within 14 days of the Order to Show Cause, why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court's Order. The Court informed Plaintiff that, alternatively, she could discharge the Order to Show Cause by filing a Motion for Summary Judgment by no later than May 14, 2015. The Court warned Plaintiff that her failure to satisfactorily respond to the Order to Show Cause will result in the action being dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court's Orders pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). (See Docket Entry No. 22).
As of today's date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Order to Show Cause or a Motion for Summary Judgment.
In view of the circumstances discussed above, this action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court's Order to file a Response to the Order to Show Cause or alternatively, a Motion for Summary Judgment. See Link v. Wabash, R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1952) (court has inherent power to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases by dismissing actions for failure to prosecute); Ferdik v.Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. (1992) (court may dismiss action for failure to comply with a court order, after court considers the appropriate factors); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
The Court has considered the appropriate factors recited in Ferdik v. Bonzelet, supra, and has concluded that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. In particular, any less drastic alternative would not be effective under the circumstances of this case.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
JUDGMENT
IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that this action is dismissed with prejudice.