Eric Ernesto Aparicio v. Martin OMalley

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: September 29, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-07390
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 ERIC E. A.,1 Case No. CV 24-07390 DMG (ADS) 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR 13 FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS 14 Commissioner of Social Security,2 15 16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 Plaintiff Eric E. A. (“Plaintiff”), represented by counsel, filed this civil 18 lawsuit seeking review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security 19 20 denying Plaintiff’s application for disability benefits. Plaintiff filed his 21

1 Plaintiff’s name has been partially redacted in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil 22 Procedure 5.2(c)(2)(B) and the recommendation of the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States. 23 2 Carolyn Colvin became Acting Commissioner of Social Security on November 30, 2024. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), she is automatically substituted for 24 Martin J. O’Malley as Defendant in this suit. 1 Complaint on August 29, 2024. Since that date, Plaintiff has been given 2 several opportunities to move forward with his lawsuit and has 3 continuously failed to do so. As such, this case is dismissed in its entirety 4 for failure to prosecute and comply with Court orders pursuant to Federal 5 Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 6 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 7 8 Plaintiff filed his Complaint on August 29, 2024. [Doc. # 1.] After 9 granting Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court issued 10 the Standing Order for this case on September 5, 2024. [Doc. # 7.] Under 11 the Standing Order, Plaintiff’s opening brief in support of his Complaint 12 was due within thirty days from service of the Answer and Certified 13 Administrative Record (“CAR”), as required by the Supplemental Rules for 14 15 Social Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Id. at 4. On November 4, 16 2024, Defendant filed the Answer and CAR, which made Plaintiff’s brief 17 due December 4, 2024. [Doc. # 9.] Plaintiff failed to file his brief. 18 On December 6, 2024, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to 19 why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. [Doc. # 10.] 20 Plaintiff was ordered to respond by no later than December 13, 2024. The 21 22 Court advised Plaintiff that his failure to timely file a response to the Order 23 to Show Cause would result in a recommendation that this action be 24 1 dismissed for failure to prosecute and obey Court orders pursuant to 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff 3 has failed to file his brief or any response to the Court’s Order to Show 4 Cause and the deadline has long passed. 5 III. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLY WITH COURT 6 ORDERS 7 8 The Court expressly cautioned Plaintiff that failure to respond would 9 result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed under Federal 10 Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the 11 Standing Order and his failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause 12 reflect a lack of prosecution of the case. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 13 626, 629–30 (1962); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). His failure to respond also 14 15 demonstrates a failure to comply with Court orders. 16 In Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988), the Ninth Circuit 17 cited the following factors as relevant to the Court’s determination of 18 whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute: “(1) the public’s 19 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 20 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 21 22 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability 23 of less drastic sanctions.” Id. at 1440. 24 1 Upon consideration of the five Carey factors, the Court finds that 2 Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute his case and failure to comply with the 3 Court’s orders warrant dismissal. The first two Carey factors—the public’s 4 interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in 5 managing the docket—weigh in favor of dismissal. Plaintiff has not taken 6 any action in this case since August 29, 2024, and has ignored two Court 7 8 orders. The Court cannot hold this case in abeyance indefinitely awaiting 9 Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s directive. The third factor, risk of 10 prejudice to Defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal since a 11 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in 12 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 13 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor, the public policy favoring disposition of 14 15 cases on their merits, is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 16 dismissal. 17 Furthermore, Plaintiff has already been cautioned of the 18 consequences of his failure to prosecute and ordered to show cause why the 19 action should not be dismissed. Plaintiff has been afforded the opportunity 20 to do so yet has not responded. No sanction lesser than dismissal is feasible 21 22 here. Thus, dismissal of this action is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil 23 Procedure 41(b). 24 1|/IV. CONCLUSION 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action be summarily 3 dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

7 8 || DATED: September 29, 2025 Ah, Dn. OLLY M. GEE 9 Chief United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24