Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03510/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03510-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Michael Joseph Lyons,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Social Security Administration, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

NO. C 07-03510 JW 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO

RULE 41(b) of FED. R. CIV. P.

On July 5, 2007, Plaintiff filed his Complaint with an Application to Proceed in Forma

Pauperis. (See Docket Item Nos. 1, 2.) On July 20, 2007, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Application;

however, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. (See Docket Item No. 5.) The

Court directed Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint by August 27, 2007, and noted that if Plaintiff

failed to file an Amended Complaint in accordance with the Order, the action would be dismissed

with prejudice for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. (Id.)

A district court has the authority to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution pursuant to its

inherent authority and Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Link v. Wabash R.

Co., 370 U.S. 626 ( 1962). Rule 41(b) states in pertinent part: "For failure of the plaintiff to

prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of the court, a defendant may move for

dismissal of an action or of any claim against the defendant. . . . [A] dismissal under this subdivision

. . . operates as an adjudication upon the merits." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). "This power is necessary to

Case 5:07-cv-03510-JW Document 5 Filed 10/26/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

prevent undue delay in the disposition of pending cases, docket congestion, and, the possibility of

harassment of a defendant." Medeiros v. U.S., 621 F.2d 468, 470 (1st Cir. 1980). 

To date, Plaintiff has not made any further filing in this case despite it being two months past

the deadline the Court set for filing an Amended Complaint. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES

this action pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, which is a dismissal on the

merits. Judgment will be entered in favor of all Defendants.

Dated: October 26, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-03510-JW Document 5 Filed 10/26/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Michael Joseph Lyons

117 West Beach Street

Watsonville, CA 95076

Dated: October 26, 2007 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:07-cv-03510-JW Document 5 Filed 10/26/07 Page 3 of 3