Opinion
2:20-cv-2196-KJN PS
11-12-2021
EMILIO J. CASTELLANOS, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
ORDER TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On August 5, 2021, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration filed the administrative transcript for this case, along with an answer to plaintiff's complaint regarding the denial of disability benefits. (ECF Nos. 11, 12.) On August 9, 2021, the court lifted the stay previously in place under General Order No. 615 and issued the scheduling order setting the parties' briefing deadlines. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was due within 45 days of the scheduling order's issuance, which was September 23, 2021. (Id. at 1.) Having received no motion by plaintiff, the court on September 28, 2021, issued an order to show cause giving plaintiff 14 days to file a motion for summary judgment (or to request a further extension) and explained what such a motion must contain. (ECF No. 16.) That extended deadline passed, and still no motion was received from plaintiff. On October 20, 2021, the court gave plaintiff a final opportunity to prosecute his case, granting him 14 additional days to file a motion for summary judgment or request a further extension of time. (ECF No. 18 (“Final Notice Order to Show Cause”).) With still no response from plaintiff, the court is now left with no alternative but to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution.
Plaintiff is representing himself in this social security case, and the action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 302(c)(15) & (21). Both parties consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge for all purposes. (ECF Nos. 9, 15.)
A district court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiffs case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her case or fails to comply with the court's orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the court's local rules. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a court “may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (approving sua sponte dismissals under Rule 41(b)). The court has weighed the five factors for determining whether to involuntarily dismiss a case and finds that dismissal is warranted. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court's orders, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) and Local Rule 110; and
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.