Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00074/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00074-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:402 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMONA MILTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

No. 2:14-cv-0074-KJN

ORDER

On January 13, 2014, plaintiff Ramona Milton, proceeding without counsel, commenced 

this action for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security 

(“Commissioner”). (ECF No. 1.) On January 16, 2014, the court granted plaintiff’s request to 

proceed in forma pauperis and directed service upon the Commissioner by the U.S. Marshal. 

(ECF No. 3.) The court also issued a scheduling order, which set various deadlines in the case. 

(ECF No. 4.) In particular, the scheduling order required plaintiff to file a motion for summary 

judgment and/or remand within 45 days from being served with a copy of the administrative 

record. (ECF No. 4 at 2.) The court also ordered the parties to complete and file the “Consent to 

Assignment or Request for Reassignment” form within 90 days, indicating whether the parties 

consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge to conduct all proceedings and enter judgment in 

the case. (ECF No. 4-1.) The court’s January 16, 2014 scheduling order expressly stated that 

failure to adhere to scheduling deadlines “may result in sanctions, including dismissal. L.R. 110. 

Case 2:14-cv-00074-MCE-KJN Document 13 Filed 08/06/14 Page 1 of 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

2

Plaintiff has an affirmative duty to prosecute this action, and failure to do so may result in a 

dismissal for lack of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Requests to modify this order must be 

made by written motion.” (ECF No. 4 at 3-4.) 

Subsequently, on May 12, 2014, the Commissioner filed an answer and lodged the 

administrative transcript. (ECF Nos. 9, 10.) Copies of these filings were served on plaintiff via 

mail at her address of record.1 (ECF No. 10-10.) To date, the court’s records show that plaintiff 

has failed to file a motion for summary judgment and/or remand, and has failed to complete and 

file the “Consent to Assignment or Request for Reassignment” form, in accordance with the 

court’s orders.2

Although plaintiff’s case is subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to 

follow the court’s orders, the court finds it appropriate, particularly in light of plaintiff’s pro se 

status, to provide plaintiff with an opportunity to explain these failures and show cause why her 

case should not be dismissed. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within 28 days of this order, plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this case should 

not be dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court orders. 

2. Within 28 days of this order, plaintiff shall file a written statement indicating whether 

or not plaintiff consents to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge for all further 

 

1 On June 12, 2014, the Commissioner filed a notice of returned mail notifying plaintiff and the 

court that the Answer to Complaint, Notice of Lodging Social Security Administrative Transcript, 

and Administrative Transcript that were served on plaintiff at her address of record were returned 

to the Commissioner as undeliverable. (ECF No. 11.) However, it is plaintiff’s duty to keep the 

court and the Commissioner informed of her current address, and service of the Commissioner’s 

filings at the address on record was effective absent the filing of a notice of change of address. In 

relevant part, Local Rule 182(f) provides: “Each appearing attorney and pro se party is under a 

continuing duty to notify the Clerk and all other parties of any change of address or telephone 

number of the attorney or the pro se party. Absent such notice, service of documents at the prior 

address of the attorney or pro se party shall be fully effective.”

2 On July 23, 2014, the Commissioner filed a notice stating that she has not yet received 

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and requesting that the court either order plaintiff to file 

her motion for summary judgment or dismiss this case for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 12.) In 

light of plaintiff’s pro se status, the court will provide plaintiff one final opportunity to file a 

motion for summary judgment in compliance with the terms of the present order. 

Case 2:14-cv-00074-MCE-KJN Document 13 Filed 08/06/14 Page 2 of 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

3

proceedings, including the entry of a final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

3. Within 28 days of this order, plaintiff shall file a motion for summary judgment and/or 

remand. 

4. Failure to timely file any of these required writings will result in dismissal of the action 

without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; see also Hells Canyon Pres. 

Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that a court may 

dismiss an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff’s 

failure to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders). If plaintiff 

does not wish to continue pursuing this case, plaintiff may alternatively seek the Commissioner’s 

agreement to a stipulation for dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(a)(1)(A)(ii). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 6, 2014

Case 2:14-cv-00074-MCE-KJN Document 13 Filed 08/06/14 Page 3 of 3