(SS)(PS) Hall v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANQUENITA SCHTEKA HALL, No. 2:19-CV-0132-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action for judicial review of a final 19 decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Pursuant to the 20 written consent of all parties, this case is before the undersigned as the presiding judge for all 21 purposes, including entry of final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 22 On October 8, 2020, mail directed to Plaintiff was returned by the United States 23 Postal Service as undeliverable. Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 183(b), any 24 party appearing pro se must file and serve a notice of change of address within 63 days of mail 25 being returned. To date, more than 63 days have elapsed since mail was returned and Plaintiff 26 has not notified the Court of a change of address. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 The Court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal. 2 | See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v. U.S. Postal 3 | Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's interest in 4 || expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court's need to manage its own docket; (3) the risk of 5 || prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; 6 | and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 7 | 53 th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an appropriate g || sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. See Malone, g | 833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is appropriate where 10 | there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1] | 1986). Dismissal has also been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to inform the district 12 | court and parties of a change of address pursuant to local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 13 | 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). 14 Having considered these factors, and in light of Plaintiff's failure to submit a 15 | notice of change of address, the Court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. This action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution; 18 2. All pending motions, ECF Nos. 26 and 31, are denied as moot; and 19 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. 20 21 92 | Dated: January 12, 2021 Ssvcqo_ 23 DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28