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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EMILIO J. CASTELLANOS, No. 2:20–cv–2196–KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION 13 v. 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 On August 5, 2021, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration filed the 19 administrative transcript for this case, along with an answer to plaintiff’s complaint regarding the 20 denial of disability benefits.1 (ECF Nos. 11, 12.) On August 9, 2021, the court lifted the stay 21 previously in place under General Order No. 615 and issued the scheduling order setting the 22 parties’ briefing deadlines. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was due 23 within 45 days of the scheduling order’s issuance, which was September 23, 2021. (Id. at 1.) 24 Having received no motion by plaintiff, the court on September 28, 2021, issued an order to show 25 cause giving plaintiff 14 days to file a motion for summary judgment (or to request a further 26 27 1 Plaintiff is representing himself in this social security case, and the action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 302(c)(15) & (21). Both parties 28 consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge for all purposes. (ECF Nos. 9, 15.) 1 || extension) and explained what such a motion must contain. (ECF No. 16.) That extended 2 || deadline passed, and still no motion was received from plaintiff. On October 20, 2021, the court 3 || gave plaintiff a final opportunity to prosecute his case, granting him 14 additional days to file a 4 | motion for summary judgment or request a further extension of time. (ECF No. 18 (“Final Notice 5 || Order to Show Cause”).) With still no response from plaintiff, the court is now left with no 6 || alternative but to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution. 7 A district court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiffs case 8 || pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her 9 || case or fails to comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the court’s 10 || local rules. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a court 11 || “may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation 12 | Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (approving sua sponte dismissals 13 | under Rule 41(b)). The court has weighed the five factors for determining whether to 14 | involuntarily dismiss a case and finds that dismissal is warranted. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 15 | F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992). 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. The case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure 18 to comply with the court’s orders, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Local 19 Rule 110; and 20 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 21 || Dated: November 12, 2021 ” Aectl Aharon 23 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 cast.2196 26 27 28