Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02169/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02169-2/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARLENE CAMPBELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEPHEN BREEN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-02169-JST 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH 

PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Arlene Campbell filed this action on May 12, 2014. ECF No. 1. She sought 

review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security to deny her Social Security benefits. 

Id. On August 13, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that Campbell failed to 

exhaust her administrative remedies before filing her complaint, and therefore that this Court 

lacked jurisdiction over the action. ECF No. 12. Campbell did not oppose the Motion.

On September 17, 2014, the Court granted Defendants‟ Motion to Dismiss, and ordered 

Campbell to amend her complaint within thirty days or face dismissal of her complaint with 

prejudice. ECF No. 13 at 3. Campbell failed to amend her complaint within thirty days, or at any 

time.

On October 27, 2014, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why Campbell‟s complaint 

should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

ECF No. 14. The Court gave Campbell thirty days to respond to that Order and explained that if 

she failed to do so, her complaint would be dismissed with prejudice. ECF No. 14 at 1.

As of today's date, Campbell has not responded to the Order to Show Cause. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

In the Ninth Circuit, “when a plaintiff fails to amend a complaint after the district judge 

dismisses the complaint with leave to amend, the dismissal is typically considered a dismissal for 

failing to comply with a court order . . . .” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 

Case 3:14-cv-02169-JST Document 15 Filed 01/21/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

1999). To determine whether to dismiss a claim for failure to comply with a court order, a court 

weighs the following 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 defendants/respondents; (4) the 

availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 

their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). Dismissal is appropriate 

“where at least four factors support dismissal . . . or where at least three factors strongly support 

dismissal.” Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation and 

internal quotations omitted).

II. ANALYSIS

Four of the five Pagtalunan factors strongly support dismissal of this action. The last is 

neutral.

The first two factors—the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, and the 

Court‟s need to manage its docket—relate to the “efficient administration of judicial business for 

the benefit of all litigants with cases pending.” Nealey v. Transportacion Maritima Mexicana, 

S.A., 662 F.2d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1980). By failing to comply with or respond to court orders, 

Campbell has completely stalled this action, thereby depriving the Court of the ability to control 

its docket. Further, Campbell‟s failure even to respond to the Court or Defendants has effectively 

clogged the Court‟s docket with an unpursued claim, diverting time and attention from other 

litigants who wish to pursue their actions. These factors weigh strongly in favor of dismissal.

As to the third factor—the risk of prejudice to Defendants—“a presumption of prejudice 

arises from the plaintiff[‟s] failure to prosecute.” Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 400. A plaintiff may 

rebut this presumption only “with an excuse for his delay that is anything but frivolous.” Nealey, 

662 F.2d at 1281. 

Campbell has provided no excuse for her failure to file an amended complaint or for her 

failure to respond to the Defendants‟ Motion to Dismiss and the Court‟s Order to Show Cause. 

Actual prejudice arises where Defendants cannot communicate with a plaintiff. Here, Campbell 

has been entirely uncommunicative. Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor weighs strongly 

in favor of dismissal.

Case 3:14-cv-02169-JST Document 15 Filed 01/21/15 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The fourth factor is the availability of less drastic sanctions. The Court gave Campbell 

multiple opportunities to comply with the Court‟s orders, including, after her failure to respond to 

the Motion to Dismiss, an opportunity to file an amended complaint and an express opportunity to 

explain her lack of diligence in prosecuting the action. In two orders, the Court warned Campbell 

that failure to respond would result in the dismissal of her complaint. See ECF Nos. 13, 14. 

Campbell also has been advised of the Court‟s free support services for pro se litigants. ECF No. 

14. Thus, the Court has fulfilled its “obligation to warn the plaintiff that dismissal is imminent.” 

Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir. 1992). Rather than dismiss her complaint with 

prejudice after Campbell failed to comply with the Court‟s first order to amend her complaint, the 

Court attempted the lesser sanction of issuing an Order to Show Cause and providing another 

opportunity to comply and save her claim. Cf. Yourish, 191 F.3d at 992.

These opportunities and warnings are sufficient to establish that the Court has considered 

and attempted sanctions short of dismissal. In re Phenyl propanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 

460 F.3d 1217, 1229 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[A court‟s] warning that failure to obey a court order will 

result in dismissal can itself meet the „consideration of alternatives‟ requirement.”) (citation 

omitted); see also Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Though 

there are a wide variety of sanctions short of dismissal available, the district court need not 

exhaust them all before finally dismissing a case.”). This factor strongly favors dismissal.

The fifth favor concerns the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, 

which normally “strongly counsels against dismissal.” PPA Prods., 460 F.3d at 1228. 

Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that “a case that is stalled or unreasonably delayed 

by a party‟s failure to comply with deadlines . . . cannot move forward toward resolution on the 

merits.” Id. Consequently, “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to 

move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that 

direction.” Id. (citations and internal quotations omitted). Campbell‟s failure to comply with the 

Court‟s orders has impeded all progress in this case. Thus, this factor is neutral.

Because granting further leave to amend would be futile, and because of the undue delay in 

this case, dismissal of this case with prejudice is proper. See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 998 (affirming 

Case 3:14-cv-02169-JST Document 15 Filed 01/21/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

dismissal with prejudice for failure to timely amend complaint). Bearing in mind its obligation of 

sensitivity to pro se litigants, the Court has more than adequately provided Campbell “with notice 

of the deficiencies” in her prosecution of this action and given her several opportunities to comply. 

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992).

CONCLUSION

Notwithstanding the public policy favoring the disposition of actions on their merits, the 

Court‟s need to manage its docket and the public interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation 

require dismissal of this action. In view of Campbell‟s unresponsiveness to Court orders, the 

Court finds no appropriate sanction less drastic than dismissing Campbell‟s complaint. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES this action WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 

41(b). The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-02169-JST Document 15 Filed 01/21/15 Page 4 of 4