Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03377/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03377-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Defendant
Shana Harris
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHANA HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL J ASTRUE, Commissioner,

Social Security Administration,

Defendant. /

No. C 10-03377 WHA

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if a plaintiff fails to prosecute

her case or to comply with a court order, her action may be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

Such dismissal is appropriate here.

Plaintiff filed her complaint in this social security appeal on April 12, 2010. The

complaint sought judicial review of a decision by the Appeals Council of the Office of Disability

Adjudication and Review denying plaintiff’s request for review (Dkt. No. 5). After some delay

caused by an administrative mix-up, the Commissioner’s answer was filed on October 26, 2010. 

The administrative record then was filed on October 28, 2010. This delay was excused, and

plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, a directed verdict, and summary judgment — based

entirely on the Commissioner’s delayed filing of an answer — was denied (Dkt. Nos. 19, 23).

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-5 and the order denying plaintiff’s motion for default

judgment, plaintiff should have filed a motion for summary judgment within thirty days of service

of the Commissioner’s answer and administrative record. Plaintiff did not file a summary

Case 3:10-cv-03377-WHA Document 25 Filed 01/03/11 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

judgment motion within thirty days, and an order to show cause was filed and served upon

plaintiff on December 14, 2010, directing plaintiff to explain by December 23, 2010 why no

motion had been filed (Dkt. No. 24). No response was filed.

It is now January 3, 2010, and plaintiff still has not filed a summary judgment motion or a

response to the order to show cause. Ample time has been allowed beyond the December 23

deadline to allow mailed correspondence to arrive. As such, the Court has no choice but to

dismiss this action under FRCP 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The action is DISMISSED. THE

CLERK SHALL CLOSE THE FILE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2011. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-03377-WHA Document 25 Filed 01/03/11 Page 2 of 2