Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01954/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01954-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jenny Lynn Johnson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of

Social Security, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1954-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff’s counsel, Scott Davis, has filed a motion to withdraw as attorney of record.

Dkt. #16. Mr. Davis has been unable to contact Plaintiff since August 2006. Mr. Davis and

his staff have attempted to contact Plaintiff at her last known address and phone number.

Letters sent via certified mail were returned as undeliverable, and Plaintiff has not otherwise

responded to the requests to contact Mr. Davis’ office. Mr. Davis states that when he

commenced this action he did not believe he would be able to locate Plaintiff and actually

litigate the matter to disposition. Mr. Davis filed the complaint solely to protect Plaintiff’s

claim. Dkt. ##16-2 ¶¶ 1-2, 16-3 Ex. 1.

“It is a well established rule that the duty to move a case is on the plaintiff and not on

the defendant or the court.” Fidelity Phila. Trust Co. v. Pioche Mines Consol., Inc., 587 F.2d

27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978) (citing Boudreau v. U.S., 250 F.2d 209 (9th Cir. 1957); Hicks v. Bekins

Moving & Storage, 115 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1940)). In this regard, it is the duty of the plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-01954-DGC Document 19 Filed 06/26/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

to keep her counsel or the court apprised of her current location. Neither counsel nor the

court has an affirmative obligation to locate the plaintiff. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439,

1441 (9th Cir. 1988).

The Court has the inherent power to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute. See Link

v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962). “The power to invoke this sanction is

necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid

congestion in the District Courts.” Id. In determining whether Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute

warrants dismissal of this action, the Court must weigh five factors: the public’s interest in

expeditious resolution of litigation, the Court’s need to manage its docket, the risk of

prejudice to Defendant, the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and

the availability of less drastic sanctions. See Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440 (citing Henderson v.

Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).

The first three factors favor dismissal of this case. Plaintiff’s failure to keep her

counsel or the Court informed of her location prevents the case from proceeding in the

foreseeable future. The fourth factor, as always, weighs against dismissal. The fifth factor

requires the Court to consider whether a less drastic alternative is available. Without

Plaintiff’s current address, however, certain alternatives are bound to be futile. “An order

to show cause why dismissal [is] not warranted or an order imposing sanctions would only

find itself taking a round trip tour through the United States mail.” Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441.

The Court finds that the least drastic available sanction is a dismissal without prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. This action is dismissed without prejudice.

2. The motion to withdraw as attorney of record (Dkt. #16) is denied as moot.

DATED this 25th day of June, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01954-DGC Document 19 Filed 06/26/07 Page 2 of 2