Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05445/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05445-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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 Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAKE THOMAS GIPSON

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

 Defendant.

_____________________________/

No. C 06-5445 WDB

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

On December 13, 2007, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause ("OSC") directing

Plaintiff's counsel, James Hunt Miller, to file a declaration by January 4, 2008, showing

cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Court issued this

OSC in light of Mr. Miller's failure timely to meet his obligation to file a motion for summary

judgment, for which the court-imposed deadline was April 18, 2007, and his failure to file

any documents in the case since March 16, 2007, when the parties filed their stipulation and

proposed Order setting the deadline for filing the motion for summary judgment.

On January 4, 2008, as directed by the Court, Mr. Miller filed a Response to the OSC.

On that date Mr. Miller also filed the motion for summary judgment — now more than eight

months overdue. In his Response to the OSC, Mr. Miller explained, somewhat

incomprehensibly, that the delay in filing the motion was due to "initial inept scheduling,"

issues that turned out to be "considerably more difficult than expected," and "a full schedule

of work on other cases." This explanation provides insufficient cause to warrant the

excessively tardy filing. Mr. Miller's excuses of having more work than he could handle and

Case 4:06-cv-05445-WDB Document 19 Filed 01/11/08 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

being faced with issues more complex than he anticipated are common to most lawyers

practicing before this Court. What distinguishes Mr. Miller is that at no time did he seek

permission from defense counsel or from the Court for an extension of the deadline to file

the Motion. Indeed, on more than one occasion, the Court contacted Mr. Miller by telephone

to inquire when the Motion would be filed. But to no avail. It was not until the Court issued

its OSC that it received any Response from Mr. Miller. 

The Court regrets that this Order dismissing the action might cause harm to Plaintiff,

who, according to Mr. Miller, is in no way responsible for his lawyer's failure to prosecute

the case. The Court's rules would be meaningless, however, if the Court did not mandate

their enforcement in cases where there has been no sufficient explanation for their violation,

nor any attempt to seek relief from the deadlines they impose. 

 Accordingly, this case is hereby DISMISSED for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2008 WAYNE D. BRAZIL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:06-cv-05445-WDB Document 19 Filed 01/11/08 Page 2 of 2