Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00801/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00801-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES RAY GREENLEA,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00801-DAD-SAB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 

FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 9, 2016, Plaintiff Charles Ray Greenlea filed a complaint challenging the 

decision of the Social Security Commissioner denying him benefits along with an application to 

proceed without prepayment of fees in this action. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) The Court determined that 

the application was improperly completed and therefore was unable to determine if Plaintiff was 

entitled to proceed without prepayment of fees. On June 14, 2016, an order issued requiring 

Plaintiff to file a long form application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee within 

twenty days. Plaintiff did not comply with or otherwise respond to the June 14, 2016 order. 

(ECF No. 4.)

On July 11, 2016, an order issued requiring Plaintiff to show cause within five days why 

this action should not be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee or file an application to 

Case 1:16-cv-00801-DAD-SAB Document 9 Filed 07/15/16 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

proceed in forma pauperis in compliance with this Court’s order. (ECF No. 5.) On July 13, 

2016, counsel filed a response indicating that mail sent to Plaintiff has been returned marked 

undeliverable and the telephone number for Plaintiff has been disconnected. (ECF No. 6.) 

Counsel has been unable to contact Plaintiff and it appears he has abandoned his claims. (Id.) 

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 

sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 

control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 

including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 

2000).

A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to 

obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 

53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 

1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order to file an amended 

complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to 

comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. 

United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply 

with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack 

of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

III.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff was ordered to either file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the 

filing fee within twenty days of the June 14, 2016 order. In the order, Plaintiff was advised that 

failure to comply with the order would result in this action being dismissed. (ECF No. 4.) More 

than twenty days have passed and Plaintiff did not file the application to proceed in forma

pauperis or pay the filing fee in this action. 

Case 1:16-cv-00801-DAD-SAB Document 9 Filed 07/15/16 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

In response to the order to show cause, counsel has indicated that Plaintiff has not 

responded to attempts to contact him and apparently has abandoned his claim. Plaintiff has 

failed to comply with the order requiring him to pay the filing fee or demonstrate that he is 

eligible to proceed without prepayment of the fee. For this reason, the Court recommends that 

this action be dismissed.

III.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed 

without prejudice for Plaintiffs’ failure to pay the filing fee or file a long form application to 

proceed in forma pauperis in compliance with the June 14, 2016 order of the Court.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within thirty (30) 

days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these findings 

and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district 

judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 15, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00801-DAD-SAB Document 9 Filed 07/15/16 Page 3 of 3