Charmia Lateac White v. Andrew M. Saul

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: December 7, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00800
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ) CHARMIA LATEAC WHITE, ) Case No. CV 20-0800-JEM 12 ) Plaintiff, ) 13 ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER v. ) 14 ) ANDREW M. SAUL, ) 15 Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) 16 Defendant. ) ) 17 18 PROCEEDINGS 19 On January 27, 2020, Charmia Lateac White (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint seeking 20 review of the decision by the Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”) denying 21 Plaintiff’s applications for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits and Supplemental 22 Security Income benefits. 23 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), both parties consented to proceed before this 24 Magistrate Judge. 25 On January 29, 2020, the Court issued a Case Management Order (“CMO”) setting 26 various deadlines, including those regarding the preparation and filing of a Joint Submission 27 (“JS”). 28 1 On May 11, 2020, Defendant filed an Answer and the Certified Administrative 2 Record. 3 On August 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed her first request to extend the briefing schedule set 4 forth in the CMO, which the Court granted on August 10, 2020. Plaintiff’s deadline to 5 submit her portions of the JS was extended to August 25, 2020. 6 On September 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed her second request to extend the briefing 7 schedule set forth in the CMO, which the Court granted that same day. Plaintiff’s deadline 8 to submit her portions of the JS was extended to October 25, 2020. 9 On November 13, 2020, Defendant filed a Notice of Non-Receipt of Plaintiff’s Initial 10 Portions of Joint Submission and Declaration stating that Plaintiff had not forwarded her 11 portions of the JS to Defendant as required by the CMO and, therefore, the JS could not be 12 filed. 13 On November 17, 2020, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) why this 14 case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff was ordered to respond to 15 the OSC no later than December 1, 2020. She was warned that failure to submit her 16 portions of the JS to Defendant or respond to the OSC could result in a recommendation 17 that this action be dismissed. 18 To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the OSC. 19 DISCUSSION 20 The Court has the inherent power to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition 21 of cases by dismissing actions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute and 22 failure to comply with a court order. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 23 (1962); see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). A dismissal 24 under Rule 41(b) - other than for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a 25 party - operates as an adjudication on the merits. 26 Because dismissal is a harsh penalty, the Court must weigh the following factors 27 when determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to comply with a court order or 28 Court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant/respondent; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642; Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 4] 1384-85 (9th Cir. 1996); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992). Having weighed these factors, the Court finds that dismissal of the action without prejudice is warranted. 7 In the instant action, the first two factors — public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the court's need to manage its docket — weigh in favor of dismissal. Plaintiff 9] has failed to submit her portions of the JS to Defendant or respond to the OSC, despite having been ordered to do so repeatedly and having been allowed ample time. Plaintiff's non-compliance hinders the Court's ability to move this case toward disposition and indicates that Plaintiff does not intend to litigate this action diligently. Her failure to respond to the OSC or submit her portions of the JS to Defendant has interfered with the public's interest in the expeditious resolution of this litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket. 16 The third factor — prejudice to defendants — also weighs in favor of dismissal. A rebuttable presumption of prejudice to a defendant arises when a plaintiff unreasonably 18] delays prosecution of an action. See Eisen, 31 F.3d at 1452-53. Nothing suggests such a 19|| presumption is unwarranted in this case. Moreover, Defendant has been required to 20] expend substantial resources to defend this action, including filing an Answer to the 21] Complaint, gathering and submitting the Certified Administrative Record, and filing the notice of non-receipt. Thus, the Court finds that Defendant has been prejudiced by 23] Plaintiff's failure to litigate this case diligently. 24 The fourth factor — public policy in favor of deciding cases on the merits — ordinarily 25| weighs against dismissal. However, it is a plaintiffs responsibility to move the case toward 26 || disposition at a reasonable pace and avoid dilatory and evasive tactics. See Morris v. Morgan Stanley, 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff has not discharged this 28 | responsibility despite having been (1) instructed on her responsibilities, (2) granted

1 sufficient time in which to discharge them, and (3) warned of the consequences of failure to 2 do so. Under these circumstances, the policy favoring resolution of disputes on the merits 3 does not outweigh Plaintiff's failure to obey a court order and submit her portions of the JS 4 to Defendant or respond to the OSC within the time granted. 5 The fifth factor – availability of less drastic sanctions – also weighs in favor of 6 dismissal. The Court cannot move the case toward disposition without Plaintiff's 7 compliance with court orders or participation in this litigation. Plaintiff has shown she is 8 either unwilling or unable to comply with court orders, rules of civil procedure, and local 9 rules by failing to submit her portions of the JS to Defendant or respond to the OSC. 10 Finally, while dismissal should not be entered unless a plaintiff has been notified that 11 dismissal is imminent, see West Coast Theater Corp. v. City of Portland, 897 F.2d 1519, 12 1523 (9th Cir. 1990), Plaintiff has been warned that her failure to submit her portions of the 13 JS to Defendant or respond to the OSC could result in dismissal of this action. Accordingly, 14 dismissal of this action without prejudice is warranted. 15 ORDER 16 IT IS ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action without 17 prejudice. 18 19 DATED: December 7, 2020 /s/ John E. McDermott JOHN E. MCDERMOTT 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28