Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01658/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01658-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:206 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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MILDRED J. LIGGETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOCIAL SECURITY

ADMINISTRATION/GOVERNMENT

SOCIAL INTEGRATED SECURITY,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:13-cv-1658-GPC-RBB

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH

LOCAL RULE 83.11(b)

On January 14, 2013, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in the San

Diego Superior Court, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, and

negligence against the Social Security Administration (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 1-2.) 

On July 16, 2013, Defendant removed the action to this Court. (ECF No. 1.)

On August 2, 2013, Defendant filed an ex parte motion for an extension of time

to file an answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 3.) The Court granted

Defendant’s Ex Parte Motion on August 9, 2013, and the Order Granting Defendant’s

Ex Parte Motion was mailed to Plaintiff’s address on file. (ECF No. 5.) On September

6, 2013, the Order Granting Defendant’s Ex Parte Motion was returned to the Court as

undeliverable. (ECF No. 6.) The returned mail indicates Plaintiff “Moved, Left No

Address/Unable to Forward.” (Id.)

3:13-cv-1658-GPC-RBB

Case 3:13-cv-01658-GPC-RBB Document 8 Filed 11/05/13 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

On September 16, 2013, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s

Complaint. (ECF No. 7.) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss included a certificate of

service, indicating the Motion was mailed to the address from which Plaintiff

apparently moved without leaving a forwarding address. (ECF No. 7-3.) The Court

thus finds Plaintiff did not receive notice of Defendant’s Motion. The Court

nonetheless findsit appropriate to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to theCourt’s

Civil Local Rules.

Civil Local Rule 83.11(b) provides:

A party proceeding pro se must keep the court and opposing parties

advised as to current address. If mail directed to a pro se plaintiff by the

clerk at the plaintiff’s last designated address is returned by the Post

Office, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the court and opposing parties

within 60 days thereafter of the plaintiff’s current address, the court may

dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Because 60 days have elapsed from the time this Court’s August 9, 2013 Order

wasreturned as undeliverable without Plaintiff providing the Court and Defendant with

her current address, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s

Complaint for failure to prosecute. The hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss,

currently set for November 15, 2013, is VACATED. The Clerk of Court is directed

to TERMINATE this case.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 5, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

2 3:13-cv-1658-GPC-RBB

Case 3:13-cv-01658-GPC-RBB Document 8 Filed 11/05/13 Page 2 of 2