Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02131/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02131-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
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

David Beck,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Commissioner of Social Security, et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 05-02131 JW 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO

FED. R. CIV. P. RULE 41(B)

Plaintiff filed the Complaint in the above entitled matter on May 24, 2005. (See Docket Item

No. 1.) On June 2, 2005, the court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis. (See Docket Items No. 1 & 2.) On October 17, 2005, Defendant filed an Answer to the

Complaint in this matter.

Civil Local Rule 16-5 states: "Within 30 days of receipt of defendant's answer, plaintiff must

file a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-2 and F. R. Civ. P. 56." On June 12,

2006, Magistrate Judge Trumbull issued an Order to Show Cause (the “OSC”) why the case should

not be dismissed for failure to prosecute based on Plaintiff’s failure to file a Motion for Summary

Judgment or any other documents in the case after May 24, 2005. (See Docket Item No. 13.) The

OSC set a deadline of June 30, 2006 for Plaintiff to file a declaration stating why this case should

not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

On August 1, 2006, Magistrate Judge Trumbull issued an Order that case be Reassigned to

District Court Judge, and Recommendation that case be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute. (See

Docket Item No. 14.) The Clerk's office issued an Order Reassigning Case to this Court on August

Case 5:05-cv-02131-JW Document 16 Filed 08/22/06 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

3, 2006. (See Docket Item No. 15.) As of the date of the above orders and this Order, Plaintiff has

not filed any response to the OSC. In addition, it appears that Plaintiff's counsel has failed to

registered for e-filing even though this case has been designated for e-filing.

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) recites in pertinent part that: "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

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). 

In determining whether to dismiss for lack of prosecution, generally the court considers: (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 cases on their

merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See Al- Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381,

1384 (9th Cir. 1996). The court may dismiss a case sua sponte for lack of prosecution by the

plaintiff. Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428 (9th Cir. 1990). Sua

sponte dismissal requires a “close focus” on consideration of “less drastic alternatives” and whether

or not there has been a “warning of imminent dismissal of the case.” Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d

272, 274 (9th Cir.1992).

Applying the standards above to the lack of action taken by the Plaintiff since the filing of

this case more than a year ago, the Court adopts the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Trumbull. 

The Court DISMISSES this case pursuant with Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

The dismissal is with prejudice.

Dated: August 15, 2006 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-02131-JW Document 16 Filed 08/22/06 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:

Odell Grooms Odell.Grooms@ssa.gov

Sara Winslow sara.winslow@usdoj.gov

Geoffrey W. Rawlings

Law Offices of Geoffrey W. Rawlings

586 North First Street, Suite 101

San Jose, Ca 95112

Dated: August 15, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:05-cv-02131-JW Document 16 Filed 08/22/06 Page 3 of 3