Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01001/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01001-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:416 Denial of 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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Ruth Gonzalez appealed defendant’s decision denying her application for Social 

Security benefits by filing a complaint before this court on August 26, 2018. ECF No. 1. 

Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis the same day. ECF No. 2. The court granted 

plaintiff’s motion and issued a summons. ECF Nos. 3, 4. On May 14, 2019, the court ordered 

plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute because 

plaintiff had not responded to a court order or submitted documents for service. ECF No. 6. 

Plaintiff responded and moved for an extension of time to effect service, which was granted on 

June 14, 2019. ECF No. 8. Once the complaint was served, defendant lodged the social security 

administrative record on November 27, 2019. ECF No. 13.

Per the scheduling order, plaintiff was to serve defendant with her letter brief and file 

proof of service thirty days after service of the administrative record. ECF No. 5, ¶3. However, 

RUTH GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01001-JDP

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:18-cv-01001-DAD-HBK Document 17 Filed 04/15/20 Page 1 of 2
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

plaintiff never filed a proof of service of her letter brief. On February 10, 2020, the court issued a 

second order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF 

No. 14. Plaintiff responded and offered to skip straight to filing a motion for summary judgment. 

ECF No. 15. On March 6, 2020, the court discharged the second order to show cause and granted 

plaintiff thirty days to file her motion for summary judgment or opening brief. ECF No. 16. 

Plaintiff failed, again, to comply with a court-ordered deadline. Thus, the court issues its third 

order to show cause in this case.

To manage the docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines on litigants and requires 

litigants to meet those deadlines. When a plaintiff fails to comply with court-imposed deadlines, 

we may dismiss the plaintiff’s case for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; Hells Canyon 

Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he consensus among 

our sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at 

least under certain circumstances.”). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but the court has a 

duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See 

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 

I will give plaintiff one final opportunity to explain why the court should not dismiss the 

case for her repeated failures to prosecute and to produce either a motion for summary judgment 

or opening brief. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply 

with a court order and will result in dismissal of this case. Accordingly, plaintiff must show 

cause within thirty days of the date of entry of this order why the court should not dismiss her

case for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff must also file either a motion for summary judgment or 

opening brief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01001-DAD-HBK Document 17 Filed 04/15/20 Page 2 of 2