Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05156/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05156-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:402 Social Security Benefits

---

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

Terrence Abdullah,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Social Security Administration,

Defendant. /

NO. C 06-05156 JW

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On August 23, 2006, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), Plaintiff Terrence Abdullah filed an

Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis based on his declaration of poverty. (See Docket Item

No. 2.) On September 14, 2006, the Court granted Plaintiff’s application and pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1915(d), dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to

amend his Complaint within thirty (30) days of the Order. (See Order, Docket Item No. 4.) To date,

Plaintiff has yet to file his Amended Complaint.

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

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). 

Case 5:06-cv-05156-JW Document 6 Filed 07/06/07 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

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to follow its instruction constitutes lack of

prosecution. More than seven months have passed since Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due;

this is further evidence that Plaintiff has abandoned the litigation. Accordingly, the Court

DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedural

which is a dismissal on the merits. Judgment will be entered in favor of Defendant.

Dated: July 6, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-05156-JW Document 6 Filed 07/06/07 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:

Terrence Abdullah

706 Colorado Avenue

Palo Alto, Ca 94303-3911

Dated: July 6, 2007 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:06-cv-05156-JW Document 6 Filed 07/06/07 Page 3 of 3