Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00889/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00889-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher James Castaneda
Plaintiff
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

Plaintiff Christopher James Castaneda initiated this action by filing a complaint for judicial 

review of the decision to deny his application for Social Security benefits on June 10, 2015. (Doc. 1) 

However, Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action or comply with the Court’s orders. Therefore, the 

Court recommends the action be DISMISSED.

I. Procedural History

On June 17, 2015, the Court observed that it appeared Plaintiff’s request for judicial review 

failed to comply with the time limitations of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 4 at 3-4) Therefore, the Court 

dismissed the complaint to give Plaintiff an opportunity to state “whether he requested an extension of 

time from the Appeals Council or, in the alternative, to allege facts that support the tolling of the statute 

of limitations.” (Id. at 4) Because Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, the Court ordered 

Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed or, in the alternative, to file an amended 

CHRISTOPHER JAMES CASTANEDA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00889 - --- - JLT

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO ASSIGN 

A UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS 

ACTION

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

DISMISSING THE ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO 

OBEY THE COURT’S ORDERS

Case 1:15-cv-00889-LJO-JLT Document 7 Filed 07/29/15 Page 1 of 4
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

complaint. (Doc. 5)

The Court warned Plaintiff that an action may be dismissed “based on a party’s failure to 

prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.” (Doc. 5 at 2) 

Plaintiff was to file a response within fourteen days of the date over service, or no later than July 24, 

2015. (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s orders.

II. Failure to Prosecute and Obey the Court’s Orders

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.” 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. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 

1986). A court may dismiss an action based upon a party’s failure to obey a court order, failure to 

prosecute an action, 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).

III. Discussion and Analysis

To determine whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, 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 

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

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

managing its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 

1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal”); Ferdik, 

963 F.2d at 1261 (recognizing that district courts have inherent interest in managing their dockets 

without being subject to noncompliant litigants). The risk of prejudice to the defendant also weighs in 

Case 1:15-cv-00889-LJO-JLT Document 7 Filed 07/29/15 Page 2 of 4
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

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). 

Notably, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate his request for judicial review was timely or that the 

Court has jurisdiction over the action because he did not file a complaint until June 10, 2015, when the 

complaint should have filed no later than May 31, 2015. (Doc. 4 at 3-4, citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); 

Fletcher v. Apfel, 210 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2000) (affirming judgment in favor of Commissioner where 

the claimant missed the statute of limitations by one day)). The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to 

allege facts that support the tolling of the statute of limitations “will result in a recommendation that the 

matter be dismissed.” (Id. at 4) Further, the Court warned Plaintiff that an action may be dismissed

“based upon a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order...” (Doc. 5 at 2) 

The warnings to Plaintiff that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s 

orders satisfy the requirement that the Court consider less drastic measures. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. Given these facts, the policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits 

is outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal.

IV. Order

Good cause appearing, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a United States District 

Judge to this action.

V. Findings and Recommendations

Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action and failed to comply with the Court’s orders dated 

June 17, 2015 (Doc. 4) and July 10, 2015 (Doc. 5). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED:

1. This action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and

2. The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to close this matter.

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)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 14 days 

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 

with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Case 1:15-cv-00889-LJO-JLT Document 7 Filed 07/29/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991); 

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00889-LJO-JLT Document 7 Filed 07/29/15 Page 4 of 4