(SS) Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security

E.D. California

(SS) Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedFebruary 10, 2020

Docket1:18-cv-01001

StatusUnknown

This text of (SS) Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security ((SS) Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(SS) Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUTH GONZALEZ, Case No. 1:18-cv-01001-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 15 Defendant. 16 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

17 18 Plaintiff Ruth Gonzalez appealed defendant’s decision denying her application for Social 19 Security benefits by filing a complaint before this court on August 26, 2018. ECF No. 1. 20 Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis the same day. ECF No. 2. The court granted 21 plaintiff’s motion and issued a summons. ECF Nos. 3, 4. The court also issued a scheduling 22 order, which set a deadline of thirty days after service of the administrative record for plaintiff to 23 serve defendant with her letter brief and to file proof of service. ECF No. 5, ¶3. Defendant filed 24 the administrative record on November 27, 2019. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff has not filed a proof of 25 service of her letter brief. 26 To manage our docket effectively, we impose deadlines on litigants and require litigants 27 to meet them. When a plaintiff fails to comply with court-imposed deadlines, we may dismiss the 28 case for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest 1 | Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he consensus among our sister circuits, with which 2 | we agree, is that courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain 3 | circumstances.”). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but the court has a duty to administer 4 | justice expeditiously and to avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 5 | F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 6 We will give plaintiff the opportunity to explain why the court should not dismiss the case 7 | for her failure to prosecute. Plaintiffs failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to 8 || comply with a court order and will result in dismissal of this case. Accordingly, plaintiff must 9 | show cause within thirty days of the date of entry of this order why the court should not dismiss 10 | her case for failure to prosecute. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. y 10, \ prssanp Rae — Dated: _ February 10, 2020 14 UNIT#D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 | No. 204. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUTH GONZALEZ, Case No. 1:18-cv-01001-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 15 Defendant. 16 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

17 18 Plaintiff Ruth Gonzalez appealed defendant’s decision denying her application for Social 19 Security benefits by filing a complaint before this court on August 26, 2018. ECF No. 1. 20 Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis the same day. ECF No. 2. The court granted 21 plaintiff’s motion and issued a summons. ECF Nos. 3, 4. The court also issued a scheduling 22 order, which set a deadline of thirty days after service of the administrative record for plaintiff to 23 serve defendant with her letter brief and to file proof of service. ECF No. 5, ¶3. Defendant filed 24 the administrative record on November 27, 2019. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff has not filed a proof of 25 service of her letter brief. 26 To manage our docket effectively, we impose deadlines on litigants and require litigants 27 to meet them. When a plaintiff fails to comply with court-imposed deadlines, we may dismiss the 28 case for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest 1 | Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he consensus among our sister circuits, with which 2 | we agree, is that courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain 3 | circumstances.”). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but the court has a duty to administer 4 | justice expeditiously and to avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 5 | F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 6 We will give plaintiff the opportunity to explain why the court should not dismiss the case 7 | for her failure to prosecute. Plaintiffs failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to 8 || comply with a court order and will result in dismissal of this case. Accordingly, plaintiff must 9 | show cause within thirty days of the date of entry of this order why the court should not dismiss 10 | her case for failure to prosecute. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. y 10, \ prssanp Rae — Dated: _ February 10, 2020 14 UNIT#D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 | No. 204. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(SS) Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ss-gonzalez-v-commissioner-of-social-security-caed-2020.