Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01744/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01744-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0427 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STALLA GAMBLE, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner )

of Social Security, )

)

)

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:08-cv-1744 OWW GSA

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

(Docs. 20 and 23)

On November 14, 2008, Plaintiff filed the present action for judicial review of the denial

of Social Security benefits. On February 23, 2010, the Court issued an order to show cause why

the action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s November

27, 2008 scheduling order. (Doc. 20). Specifically, Plaintiff failed to file her opening brief by 1

the required date. The order to show cause directed Plaintiff to file a written response within

twenty days of the date of the order. 

On February 24, 2010, the Court received several loose documents from Plaintiff

consisting of additional medical records and two letters from individuals written on Plaintiff’s

behalf. No response to the order to show cause was attached to the documents. The Court

The Court notes that this is the second order to show cause issued to Plaintiff in this case. An order to

1

show cause for failure to obey a court order was also issued on January 29, 2009 (Doc. 7). Plaintiff did not respond

to the order show cause and Findings and Recommendations were issued to dismiss Plaintiff’s case. (Doc. 8).

Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 9). The Court subsequently vacated the

Findings and Recommendations and the Order to Show Cause on April 7, 2009. (Doc. 10).

1

Case 1:08-cv-01744-OWW -GSA Document 23 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 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

returned these documents to the Plaintiff because Plaintiff had not demonstrated good cause for

the filing of the additional documents. At that time, the Court explained that Plaintiff was

required to respond to the order to show cause as well as to file an opening brief. The Court

extended the deadline for Plaintiff to do so until March 25, 2010. Plaintiff was advised that

failure to file a response to the order to show cause would result in dismissal of this action.

DISCUSSION

Local Rule 11-110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

Local 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 “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions

including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” 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); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-

41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to

keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir.

1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 

In determining 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. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831;

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali,

46 F.3d at 53. 

2

Case 1:08-cv-01744-OWW -GSA Document 23 Filed 04/07/10 Page 2 of 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

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. This case

has been pending since November 14, 2008, and the Court granted Plaintiff an extension of time

to respond to the order to show cause. Additionally, the Court has issued a previous order to

show cause related to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order. The third factor, risk of

prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises

from the occurrence of 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 greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally,

a court’s warning to a party that her failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal

satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833

F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s, February 23, 2010 and March 4,

2010 orders expressly stated that failure to respond to the order to show cause would result in

dismissal of the action. Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that a dismissal would result from

non-compliance with the Court’s order. 

Accordingly, the Court recommends that the action be DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s failure

to follow the Court’s order and failure to prosecute this action. These findings and

recommendation are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant

to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after being served with

these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such a

document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendation." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

3

Case 1:08-cv-01744-OWW -GSA Document 23 Filed 04/07/10 Page 3 of 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

Dated: April 7, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:08-cv-01744-OWW -GSA Document 23 Filed 04/07/10 Page 4 of 4