Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01880/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01880-6/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARGARITA CALIXTRO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01880-GSA

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT 

ORDER

(ECF No. 28)

Pro se plaintiff Margarita Calixtro (“Plaintiff”) was previously directed to submit an 

Opening Brief in this case no later than December 19, 2014. ECF No. 24. On December 19, 2014, 

Plaintiff, through her husband, Alejo Calixtro, filed a short letter with the Court in which Mr. 

Calixtro provided a summary of Plaintiff’s medical condition. ECF No. 26. On January 9, 2015, 

the Court notified Plaintiff that Mr. Calixtro’s letter did not constitute an appropriate opening 

brief and provided instructions on how to submit an opening brief. Plaintiff was directed to file an 

appropriate opening brief by February 9, 2015 and was warned that a failure to do so could result 

in the dismissal of her action. ECF No. 27. By February 24, 2015, no opening brief had been filed 

and the Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff to submit an opening brief or file 

a notice of voluntary dismissal if she was no longer interested in pursuing the case. ECF No. 28.

Case 1:13-cv-01880-GSA Document 29 Filed 03/30/15 Page 1 of 3
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 Order to Show Cause warned that unless an appropriate response was filed by March 25, 

2015, the action would be dismissed. Id. To date, no response has been filed.

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 

or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all 

sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to 

control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including,

where appropriate . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 

A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 

failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 

F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 

963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 

amendment of complaint); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal 

for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

To determine whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court 

order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (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 alternatives. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Ferdik, 

963 F.2d at 1260-61; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24.

In the instant case, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 

litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal because this 

case has been pending in this Court since November 20, 2013, and it does not appear that Plaintiff 

is going to file an opening brief. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in 

favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from any unreasonable delay in 

prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor, 

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, is outweighed by the factors in favor of 

dismissal. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result 

in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 

Case 1:13-cv-01880-GSA Document 29 Filed 03/30/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order to Show Cause clearly stated that the case would 

be dismissed if Plaintiff failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause. ECF No. 28 (“If Plaintiff 

fails to timely respond to this Order to Show Cause, the action will be dismissed in its entirety”). 

ORDER

Accordingly, this Court orders that this action be DISMISSED for Plaintiff's failure to 

comply with a court order. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this action. This order 

terminates this case in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01880-GSA Document 29 Filed 03/30/15 Page 3 of 3