Valirie R. Vaughn v. Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: September 25, 2019
• Docket: 5:19-cv-00103
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VALIRIE R. VAUGHN, ) Case No. EDCV 19-0103-R (JPR) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 13 v. ) FAILURE TO PROSECUTE ) 14 COMM’R OF SOC. SEC., ) ) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 ) 17 On January 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed pro se a Complaint 18 challenging the denial of Social Security benefits. On January 19 24, the Magistrate Judge issued a case-management order, 20 requiring Plaintiff to file a motion for judgment on the 21 pleadings within 35 days of service of Defendant’s Answer to the 22 Complaint. Defendant filed and served his Answer on May 9. 23 Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was due no 24 later than June 13. After she did not timely file her motion, 25 the Magistrate Judge on June 28 ordered her to show cause in 26 writing within 14 days why the case should not be dismissed for 27 28 1 1 lack of prosecution.1 The Court also advised Plaintiff that 2 legal help was available at one of the pro se clinics in the 3 district and provided the address and phone number for the one 4 closest to Plaintiff. On July 9, she requested an extension of 5 time to file the motion for judgment on the pleadings; the 6 Magistrate Judge granted her request on July 11. 7 On July 24, a “good friend” of Plaintiff’s filed a document 8 titled “Summary of the Case,” in which she claimed that Plaintiff 9 is mostly confined to bed. On August 22, after Plaintiff’s 10 extended deadline for filing her motion for judgment on the 11 pleadings had expired, Defendant requested that the Court order 12 her to show cause why her lawsuit should not be dismissed for 13 failure to prosecute. Plaintiff opposed the request on August 14 27, asking the Court to treat the “Summary of the Case” as her 15 motion for judgment on the pleadings. On August 28, the 16 Magistrate Judge again ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the 17 case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, advising 18 her that the Court had no authority to accept or consider the 19 “Summary of the Case” because it was filed by a third party and 20 was not signed by Plaintiff. The Magistrate Judge again advised 21 Plaintiff to seek assistance at her local pro se clinic and 22 further told her that if she could not prosecute her lawsuit 23 herself she had to retain an attorney, noting that disability- 24 appeal attorneys typically prosecute Social Security cases on a 25 contingency basis. To date, Plaintiff has neither filed a motion 26 27 1 This was not the first time the Magistrate Judge had issued such an order, having previously ordered Plaintiff to show cause 28 after she did not timely file her proof of service of the Complaint on Defendant. 2 1 for judgment on the pleadings nor timely responded to the most 2 recent order to show cause. 3 Courts may dismiss lawsuits that are not diligently 4 prosecuted. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); 5 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). 6 In determining whether to dismiss a pro se plaintiff’s lawsuit 7 for failure to prosecute, a court must consider “(1) the public’s 8 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s 9 need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 10 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases 11 on their merits[;] and (5) the availability of less drastic 12 sanctions.” Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. Unreasonable delay creates 13 a rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the defendant that can 14 be overcome only with an affirmative showing of just cause by the 15 plaintiff. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 16 1994). 17 Here, the first, second, third, and fifth Carey factors 18 weigh in favor of dismissal. Plaintiff has ceased communicating 19 with the Court, and thus she has not rebutted the presumption of 20 prejudice to Defendant caused by her unreasonable delay in 21 prosecuting this lawsuit. There also does not appear to be any 22 less drastic sanction the Court can take, as despite numerous 23 opportunities to do so, Plaintiff still has not filed a motion 24 for judgment on the pleadings, and thus no issues are before the 25 Court for it to resolve. Further, Plaintiff has been repeatedly 26 and expressly warned that if she did not respond to the 27 Magistrate Judge’s orders to show cause, her action would likely 28 be dismissed. Yet she has not responded at all to the latest 3 1]}such order. Although the fourth factor weighs against dismissal as it always does — the other factors together outweigh the 3} public’s interest in disposing of the case on its merits. See Long v. Astrue, 416 F. App’x 633, 634 (9th Cir. 2011) (upholding 5 || dismissal of Social Security action for failure to prosecute when 6 || plaintiff had not served summons and did not show cause for 7 || failure to do so). 8 Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action without 9 || demonstrating good cause, and it is therefore DISMISSED. 10 avy area 12 || DATED:_September 25, 2019 as R. GARY KLAUSNER 13 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 14 Presented by: 15 i, att. 16 web innllitem U.S. Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28