Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_18-cv-01012/USCOURTS-cand-1_18-cv-01012-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial 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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

MONICA DENISE HINER,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW SAUL,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-01012-RMI 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

This Social Security Appeal was filed on February 15, 2018. See (dkt. 1). Both parties 

have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. See (dkts. 6,12). Defendant filed her Answer on 

July 6, 2018, and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was due 28 days thereafter on August 

3, 2018. See (dkt. 7, 14). On January 29, 2019, the court entered an Order in which it took 

judicial notice of the fact that Plaintiff’s attorney of record, Kenneth J. Collins, is now deceased.

See (dkt. 16). The court gave Plaintiff thirty days to either: 1) file a notice of appearance, 

informing the court that she intends to proceed pro se, representing herself in this matter, or 2) 

obtain other counsel and have them file a notice of appearance in the case. Id. The court 

expressly warned Plaintiff that her failure to comply with the court order with result in dismissal 

of this case without prejudice. Plaintiff has failed to respond to the court’s Order. 

“In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court order the 

district court must weigh five factors including: “(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.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting 

Case 1:18-cv-01012-RMI Document 18 Filed 08/06/19 Page 1 of 2
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

Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d at 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)); see Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 

F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002) (confirming application of factors).

In this instance, Plaintiff’s abandonment of her case controls the five factors set forth in 

Ferdik. Although public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits, Plaintiff’s failure to 

litigate this case makes it impossible for the court to proceed. “(1) [T]he public’s interest in 

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; and (3) the risk of 

prejudice to the defendants” all weigh in favor of dismissal and there are no less drastic 

alternatives available.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is dismissed without prejudice for 

failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2019

ROBERT M. ILLMAN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:18-cv-01012-RMI Document 18 Filed 08/06/19 Page 2 of 2