Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01125/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01125-3/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 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAMIEN G. GONZALES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 1:15-cv-01125-SAB 

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE AND DIRECTING CLERK 

OF COURT TO CLOSE THIS ACTION AND 

ADJUST THE DOCKET TO REFLECT 

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

(ECF No. 7) 

 On July 20, 2015, Plaintiff Damien G. Gonzales (“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint in this 

action challenging the Commissioner’s decision to deny disability benefits. (ECF No. 1.) 

Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis which the Court found insufficient 

to determine if Plaintiff was entitled to proceed without prepayment of fees. (ECF Nos. 2, 3.) 

Plaintiff was ordered to provide a long form application to proceed in forma pauperis within 

twenty days. (ECF No. 3.) On August 28, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for an 

extension of time to September 11, 2015 to submit the application. (ECF Nos. 4, 5.) 

 Plaintiff did not file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, pay the filing fee, or 

otherwise respond to the Court’s order by the deadline. On August 28, 2015, an order issued 

requiring Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply 

with the August 14, 2015 order. On September 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a response to the order to 

show cause and a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of 

Case 1:15-cv-01125-SAB Document 9 Filed 09/14/15 Page 1 of 2
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Civil Pro

 “

action pr

Commer

(quoting 

Rule 41(

action ha

do anyth

pleading

A

 1

 2

IT IS SO

Dated: 

ocedure. 

[U]nder Rul

rior to servi

cial Space M

Wilson v. C

(a)(1) is effe

ad been brou

hing about it

.

Accordingly, 

. The o

. The C

and ad

41(a).

O ORDERED

 Septemb

le 41(a)(1)(i

ice by the d

Mgmt. Co., 

City of San J

ective on fili

ught, the defe

t.” Id. at 1

IT IS HERE

rder to show

Clerk of the 

djust the doc

D. 

ber 11, 201

i), ‘a plainti

defendant of

Inc. v. Boe

Jose, 111 F.

ing, no cour

fendant can’t

1078. No 

EBY ORDER

w cause is DI

Court is HE

cket to reflec

15 

2 

iff has an a

f an answer

ing Co., Inc

.3d 688, 692

rt order is re

t complain, a

defendant h

RED that: 

ISCHARGE

EREBY OR

ct voluntary 

UNITE

absolute righ

r or a motio

c., 193 F.3d

2 (9th Cir. 1

equired, the 

and the distr

has filed an 

ED; and 

RDERED to 

dismissal of

ED STATES

ht to volunt

on for summ

d 1074, 1077

1997)). “[A]

parties are l

rict court lac

answer or 

CLOSE the

f this action 

S MAGISTR

tarily dismis

mary judgme

7 (9th Cir. 1

] dismissal u

left as thoug

cks jurisdicti

other respo

e file in this

pursuant to 

RATE JUDG

ss his 

ent.’” 

1999) 

under 

gh no 

ion to 

onsive 

s case 

 Rule 

GE 

Case 1:15-cv-01125-SAB Document 9 Filed 09/14/15 Page 2 of 2