Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01130/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01130-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0423 Social Security Act (Disability Insurance Benefit Payments)

---

1

17cv1130-CAB-BGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID B. TURNER, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv1130-CAB-BGS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS COMPLAINT [Doc. No. 11]

Plaintiff David B. Turner, a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint 

based on denial of his individual application for social security benefits. [Doc. No. 1.] 

On October 2, 2017, Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill filed a motion to dismiss. [Doc. No. 

11.] On October 2, 2017, this Court issued a minute order setting forth a briefing 

schedule, and requiring any opposition to be filed by October 20, 2017. [Doc. No. 12.] 

On December 1, 2017, this Court issued a minute order noting that it did not appear that 

Defendant properly served Plaintiff with the motion to dismiss, as Plaintiff is in pro per 

and must be served by mail. [Doc. No. 13.] The Court ordered Defendant to serve 

Plaintiff by mail and file proof of such service by December 8, 2017. Id. It also ordered 

any opposition to the motion to dismiss be filed by January 5, 2018. Id. On December 8, 

2017, Defendant filed a certificate of service showing the Plaintiff was served with a 

Case 3:17-cv-01130-CAB-BGS Document 15 Filed 01/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17cv1130-CAB-BGS

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

copy of the motion to dismiss by certified mail. [Doc. No. 14.] To date, no opposition to 

the motion to dismiss has been filed.

Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2. requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition within fourteen calendar days of the noticed hearing (or 

when otherwise scheduled by the Court). Failure to comply with these rules “may 

constitute a consent to the granting of a motion.” Civ. Local R. 7.1.f.3.c. District courts 

have broad discretion to enact and apply local rules, including dismissal of a case for 

failure to comply with the local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.1995) 

(affirming grant of an unopposed motion to dismiss under local rule by deeming a pro se 

litigant’s failure to oppose as consent to granting the motion). Before dismissing an 

action for failure to comply with local rules, the district court “weigh[s] 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 of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 

sanctions.’” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 

(9th Cir.1986)). That plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action does not excuse his 

failure to follow the rules of procedure that govern other litigants. King v. Atiyeh, 814 

F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure 

that govern other litigants.”). 

Here, Defendant filed a certificate of service, signaling that Plaintiff was served 

with the motion to dismiss at the address provided on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint. 

[Doc. No. 14.] Plaintiff was required to file an opposition by January 5, 2018. Two 

weeks have passed since then and still Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. Thus, the 

Court finds that “the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation,” “the court’s 

need to manage its docket,” and “the risk of prejudice to the defendant” all weigh in favor 

of granting the motion to dismiss. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. Accordingly, the majority 

of the Ghazali factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

Case 3:17-cv-01130-CAB-BGS Document 15 Filed 01/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17cv1130-CAB-BGS

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

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to 

dismiss [Doc. No. 11] is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the complaint is 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 19, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-01130-CAB-BGS Document 15 Filed 01/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3