Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01016/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01016-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
John Margarito Cortez
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN MARGARITO CORTEZ, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-01016-SKO

ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF’S 

COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE 

(Doc. 19)

I. BACKGROUND

On June 27, 2014, Plaintiff John Margarito Cortez (“Plaintiff”), while represented by 

counsel and in forma pauperis, filed the present action in this Court. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff seeks 

review of the Commissioner’s denial of his application for benefits. (Doc. 1.) After being granted 

an initial extension of the briefing schedule (see Docs. 12; 13), Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to 

withdraw as attorney of record on April 8, 2015 (Doc. 14.) Plaintiff’s counsel stated that the 

attorney-client relationship had deteriorated and counsel was no longer able to proceed in 

representing Plaintiff’s interests. (Doc. 14.) 

Plaintiff’s counsel was permitted to withdraw as attorney of record on April 29, 2015 

(Doc. 17), and the briefing schedule was modified to require Plaintiff to file and serve his opening 

brief by no later than June 5, 2015. (Doc. 15.) Plaintiff was served with an Informational Order 

for Pro Se Litigants on May 12, 2015. (Doc. 18.) The Informational Order detailed Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:14-cv-01016-SKO Document 20 Filed 07/22/15 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

responsibilities as a pro se litigant, including the substantive requirements of an opening brief, and 

required that the opening brief be filed and served by no later than June 5, 2015. (Doc. 18, 

pp. 2-3.) On June 5, 2015, Plaintiff failed to file and serve his opening brief with the Court and on 

opposing counsel. (See Docket.) 

Following Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order, on June 26, 2015, the Court 

issued an order to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed. (Doc. 19.) Plaintiff was 

ordered to respond by no later than July 10, 2015, or in the alternative, to file his opening brief in 

accordance with the Court’s order modifying the briefing schedule. (Doc. 19.) 

Plaintiff has not filed any response to the Court’s order to show cause why the action 

should not be dismissed, nor has he filed his opening brief. (See Docket.) 

II. DISCUSSION

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of 

a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court 

of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” See LR 110. 

“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, 

a court may impose sanctions including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of L.A., 

782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a 

party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with 

local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 

failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal 

Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); 

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and 

to comply with local rules).

In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to obey a court order or failure to 

comply with the Local Rules, the court must consider several 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 sanctions.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see 

Case 1:14-cv-01016-SKO Document 20 Filed 07/22/15 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

also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Thomspon, 782 F.2d at 831.

In this case, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s 

interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The risk of prejudice to the 

Defendant Commissioner also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises 

from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecution of an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 

542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir.1976). No less drastic sanction is available to the Court, as Plaintiff 

has failed to comply with the Court’s prior orders and is proceeding in forma pauperis. The 

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits is outweighed by these other four factors in 

favor of dismissal. See Hall v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:11-cv-00693-JLT, 2011 WL 3794705 

at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2011). 

In its June 26, 2015, order, the Court informed Plaintiff that failure to comply with the 

Court’s order to show cause may result in dismissal of an action. (Doc. 19.) Thus, Plaintiff had 

adequate warning that dismissal would result from failure to file his opening brief or “show cause” 

for why the action should not be dismissed. It is within the Court’s inherent authority to dismiss 

the action both for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with the Court’s order. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Good cause being established therefor, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend; 

and

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

This terminates the action in its entirety. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 21, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01016-SKO Document 20 Filed 07/22/15 Page 3 of 3