Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01168/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01168-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

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

10cv1168-JLS (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK ROBERT POMERANCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

the Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 10cv1168-JLS (BLM)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THAT CASE BE DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States District Judge Janis L.

Sammartino pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rules 72.1(c) of the United States

District Court for the Southern District of California.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed a complaint in this matter seeking judicial review of Defendant’s final

administrative decision denying Plaintiff Widower’s Insurance Benefits based upon disability under

Title II of the Social Security Act. ECF No. 1. On August 27, 2010, Defendant filed his answer

and the administrative record. ECF Nos. 7 & 9. The same day, this Court issued an Order Setting

Briefing Schedule and Hearing Date on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 10.

Pursuant to that order, Plaintiff was to file a motion for summary judgment on or before October

4, 2010. Id. 

Case 3:10-cv-01168-JLS-BLM Document 13 Filed 11/29/10 Page 1 of 5
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

 Even if Plaintiff somehow was unaware of his deadline for filing his summary judgment motion, the Court’s

local rules require that all dispositive motions be filed “not later than sixty (60) days prior to the date for which the

matter is noticed.” CivLR 7.1(e)(6). The hearing date set by this Court was December 6, 2010 (ECF No. 10), so

Plaintiff’s motion also would be untimely under the local rules.

2 10cv1168-JLS (BLM)

When Plaintiff failed to file such a motion or to seek an extension of time in which to do

so, this Court issued an order to show cause why this Court should not recommend to the district

judge that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute.1

 ECF No 11. In the order to show

cause, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a declaration on or before November 12, 2010, regarding

his failure to comply with this Court’s August 27, 2010 order. Id. The Court further ordered

Plaintiff to appear for a hearing on November 18, 2010. Id. 

Plaintiff did not file a declaration or any other response by the deadline set by this Court.

On November 16, 2010, this Court’s law clerk called counsel for Plaintiff and left a message

inquiring as to the status of the overdue declaration. Neither Plaintiff nor his counsel responded

to the Court’s order or the telephone call and both also failed to appear for the hearing on

November 18, 2010. The Court documented this failure to appear on the record. See ECF No.

12. 

DISCUSSION

In light of Plaintiff’s failure to participate in this case, this Court recommends that the case

be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The authority of federal district courts to sua sponte dismiss

actions for failure to prosecute arises from their inherent power. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S.

626, 629-632 (1962) (confirming court’s inherent authority and rejecting the argument that Fed.

R. Civ. P. 41(b) prohibits involuntary dismissal initiated by the court, as opposed to by a

defendant’s motion); Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 400 (9th Cir. 1998). “Despite

this authority, dismissal is a harsh penalty and, therefore, it should only be imposed in extreme

circumstances.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). The Ninth Circuit has

“set forth five factors for a district court to consider before resorting to the penalty of dismissal:

‘(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its

docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of

Case 3:10-cv-01168-JLS-BLM Document 13 Filed 11/29/10 Page 2 of 5
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 10cv1168-JLS (BLM)

cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Hernandez, 138 F.3d at

399 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986)). When a court is considering

sua sponte dismissal of an action, the focus should be on the availability of less drastic

alternatives and whether the plaintiff had warning that the case might be dismissed. See Olivia

v. Sullvan, 958 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Here, a weighing of the Henderson factors tilts the scale in favor of dismissal. The public’s

interest in having litigation resolved expeditiously, the court’s need to manage its docket, and the

risk of prejudice to the defendant all support dismissal of the action. See id. (finding first three

factors weighed in favor of dismissal where plaintiff’s social security case was dismissed sua

sponte because she failed to timely file her summary judgment motion); Glasper v. Astrue, 2008

WL 4375744, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2008) (adopting report and recommendation finding that

first three factors supported dismissal). While the public policy favoring disposition on the merits

generally weighs against dismissing the action, “it is the responsibility of the moving party to

move towards that disposition at a reasonable pace, and to refrain from dilatory and evasive

tactics.” Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991). Despite having

repeat opportunities to pursue his case and having received notice that failure to do so could

result in dismissal of his case, Plaintiff has not taken any steps toward satisfying this responsibility. 

To guide district courts in evaluating the final factor, the availability of less drastic

sanctions, the Ninth Circuit has established a three-part test. Specifically, “[t]he sub-parts of the

fifth factor are whether the court has considered lesser sanctions, whether it tried them, and

whether it warned the recalcitrant party about the possibility of case-dispositive sanctions.” Conn.

Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting

that this “test” need not be applied mechanically). In this case, the Court warned Plaintiff in its

order to show cause that its sanctioning authority for Plaintiff’s failure to comply included “any

and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule or within the inherent power of the court, including,

without limitation, dismissal of any actions, entry of default, finding of contempt, imposition of

monetary sanctions or attorneys’ fees and costs, and other lesser sanctions.” ECF No. 11 (citing

Case 3:10-cv-01168-JLS-BLM Document 13 Filed 11/29/10 Page 3 of 5
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

4 10cv1168-JLS (BLM)

CivLR 83.1). In addition, the Court told Plaintiff that he must explain during the hearing why his

case should not be dismissed. Id. at 1-2. The Court also attempted to avoid dismissal by

providing Plaintiff with three opportunities to explain and potentially rectify his failure to prosecute

this case by filing the required summary judgment motion (namely, the ordered declaration, the

follow up telephone call, and the November 18, 2010 hearing). It is not, however, incumbent

upon the Court to impose all lesser sanctions before dismissing the case. “The district court need

not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore

possible and meaningful alternatives.” See Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424 (finding that court

satisfied its obligation by warning that dismissal was possible, holding a status conference, and

establishing a discovery schedule); see also Godfrey v. Astrue, 2010 WL 342858, at *2 (C.D. Cal.

Jan. 29, 2010) (concluding the court explored meaningful alternatives by “repeatedly warning

Plaintiff of her obligation to respond to Court orders and granting her additional time to do so”).

Given Plaintiff’s complete failure to respond to any of this Court’s orders, warnings, or additional

opportunities to explain or comply, it is unlikely that lesser sanctions, such as monetary penalties,

would have any impact on Plaintiff’s behavior.

In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders or to in any

way prosecute his case warrants sanctions. Having weighed the Henderson factors, the Court

concludes that dismissal is the appropriate sanction and, therefore, RECOMMENDS that

Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Owens v. Kaiser

Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 714 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that dismissal for failure to

prosecute is treated as an adjudication on the merits); Godfrey, 2010 WL 342858 at *3

(dismissing social security case with prejudice because dismissal was based on failure to prosecute

and obey court orders). 

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the District Judge issue

an Order: (1) approving and adopting this Report and Recommendation and (2) dismissing this

action in its entirety with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

IT IS ORDERED that no later than December 15, 2010, any party to this action may

Case 3:10-cv-01168-JLS-BLM Document 13 Filed 11/29/10 Page 4 of 5
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

5 10cv1168-JLS (BLM)

file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Plaintiff is specifically

warned that his failure to file an objection by December 15, 2010, may result in the dismissal

of his case with prejudice. The document should be captioned “Objections to Report and

Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with the Court

and served on all parties no later than December 29, 2010. The parties are advised that failure

to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal

of the Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 29, 2010

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01168-JLS-BLM Document 13 Filed 11/29/10 Page 5 of 5