Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01124/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01124-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW BERG,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

No. 2:19-CV-1124-JAM-DMC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action for judicial review of a final 

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

On September 4, 2019, the court granted plaintiff in forma pauperis status and

required plaintiff to submit to the United States Marshal, within 15 days of the date of service of 

the order, a completed summons and copies of the complaint, and file a statement with the court 

that said documents have been submitted. Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply may

result in dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules 

and orders. See Local Rule 110. More than 15 days have elapsed and plaintiff has not 

complied. On October 3, 2019, the court directed plaintiff to show cause in writing within 30 

days why the action should not be dismisses for failure to comply. See ECF No. 7. Plaintiff 

failed to respond. 

Case 2:19-cv-01124-JAM-DMC Document 9 Filed 01/02/20 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

The court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal. 

See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v. U.S. Postal 

Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's interest in 

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

prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; 

and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 

53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an appropriate 

sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. See Malone, 

833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is appropriate where 

there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 

1986). Dismissal has also been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to comply with an 

order to file an amended complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 

1992).

Having considered these factors, and in light of plaintiff’s failure to submit the 

documents necessary for service of process as directed, the court finds that dismissal of this 

action is appropriate.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed, 

without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: January 2, 2020

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-01124-JAM-DMC Document 9 Filed 01/02/20 Page 2 of 2