McKinnon v. Colvin

Full title: Jessica McKinnon v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California

Date published: Apr 10, 2015

ED CV 13-2126 MMM (JCG) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2015)

Opinion

Jessica McKinnon v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security ED CV 13-2126 MMM (JCG) United States District Court, C.D. California April 10, 2015

          Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND/OR COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS

          Jay C. Gandhi, United States Magistrate Judge.

         In this action, Plaintiff seeks review of the denial of her late husband's application for social security disability benefits.¹ [ See Dkt. No. 3.]

1 Plaintiff was substituted as the party of record following her husband's death in 2014. [ See Dkt. No. 17.]

         On February 27, 2015, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (" OSC") why this action should not be dismissed after Plaintiff failed to file her Motion for Summary Judgment (" MSJ"). [Dkt. No. 20.]

         Plaintiff was advised that if she filed her MSJ by March 27, 2015, she did not need to separately respond to the OSC. [ Id. ]

         As of today, Plaintiff has failed to file her MSJ, or otherwise respond to the OSC.

         Instead, on March 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed a new complaint, in which she purported to challenge -- by means of an entirely new action -- the denial of her husband's application for social security disability benefits.² [ See C.D. Cal. Case No. ED CV 15-0599 MMM (JCG), Dkt. No. 1 at 1, 3.]

2 The Court has recommended that Plaintiff's concurrent request to proceed in forma pauperis be denied on the grounds that her proposed complaint is (1) duplicative and (2) untimely.

         Pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-32, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). Here, Plaintiff has failed to respond to two consecutive orders, including the OSC. [ See Dkt. Nos. 19, 20.]

         Accordingly, within fourteen days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE -- that is, to explain, in writing, why she has failed to file her MSJ or otherwise respond to the OSC.

         Alternatively, if Plaintiff files her MSJ by April 24, 2015, she need not separately respond to this Order to Show Cause.

         Plaintiff is warned that her failure to timely file her MSJ or otherwise respond to this Order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with court orders, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.