Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02726/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02726-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Respondent
Michele J. Otwell
Petitioner

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHELE J. OTWELL, No. 2:14-cv-2726-CMK PS

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, who is proceeding in propria persona, brings this action for judicial

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

Pursuant to the written consent of all parties, this case is before the undersigned as the presiding

judge for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Pursuant to

the court’s scheduling order, plaintiff is required to prosecute this action by either seeking

voluntary remand or filing a dispositive motion within 45 days from the date of service of the

administrative record by defendant. 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. A review of the docket reflects that the answer and certified administrative

record were served on November 16, 2015. To date, plaintiff has not filed a dispositive motion. 

1

Case 2:14-cv-02726-CMK Document 23 Filed 06/03/16 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

As a result of plaintiff’s failure to file a timely dispositive motion, the defendant

filed a motion for dismissal for failure to prosecute (Doc. 20). 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). 

Having considered these factors, and in light of plaintiff’s failure to file a

dispositive motion as directed, as well as her failure to respond to the defendant’s motion to

dismiss, the court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate. It is clear from the lack of

response that plaintiff is no longer interested in pursing this action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed, without

prejudice, for plaintiff’s lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. 

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

DATED: June 3, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:14-cv-02726-CMK Document 23 Filed 06/03/16 Page 2 of 2