Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-03135/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-03135-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Jose Martin,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Social Security Administration,

Defendant. /

NO. C 08-03135 JW 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On June 30, 2008, Plaintiff in pro per, filed an appeal from a denial of his social security

benefits by the Social Security Commissioner. (Docket Item No. 1.) Upon receipt of the Complaint,

the Court issued to Plaintiff a Social Security Procedural Order. (hereafter, “Order,” Docket Item

No. 3.) In its Order, the Court directed Defendant to file an Answer and Transcript within ninety

days of the receipt of service and summons, and Plaintiff to serve and file a Motion for Summary

Judgment within thirty days of Defendant’s Answer. (Id.) On December 19, 2008, Defendant

served and filed its Answer and Transcript. (See Docket Item Nos. 12, 13, 14.) Pursuant to the

Order, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment was due on January 20, 2009. To date, Plaintiff

has neither filed his Motion nor otherwise communicated with the Court.

On April 8, 2010, well over a year after Plaintiff’s deadline, the Court issued an Order to

Show Cause re: Dismissal for lack of prosecution. (hereafter, “OSC Order,” Docket Item No. 20.) 

The OSC Order directed Plaintiff to file with the Court on or before April 23, 2010, a certification as

Case 5:08-cv-03135-JW Document 21 Filed 05/03/10 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

1

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that a defendant may move for dismissal of

an action for “failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of

court.” However, although Rule 41(b) provides for dismissal on the motion of the defendant, the

court may also dismiss an action sua sponte. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30

(1962); see also Alexander v. Pacific Maritime Ass'n, 434 F.2d 281, 283-84 (9th Cir. 1970).

2

 The Docket does not reflect that mail sent to Plaintiff’s provided address has been returned

to the Court.

2

to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.1 The Order clearly warned that,

“Failure to comply with any part of this [OSC] Order will be deemed sufficient grounds to dismiss

this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).” To date, Plaintiff has neither filed the certification or

otherwise communicated with the Court.2 Plaintiff also failed to appear at the hearing on May 3,

2010. It appears that Plaintiff has abandoned his appeal.

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for lack of

prosecution. The Clerk shall close this file.

Dated: May 3, 2010 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:08-cv-03135-JW Document 21 Filed 05/03/10 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:

Leo Rufino Montenegro Leo.R.Montenegro@ssa.gov

Jose Martin

4136 Lander Avenue

Turlock, CA 95380

Dated: May 3, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:08-cv-03135-JW Document 21 Filed 05/03/10 Page 3 of 3