Vergara v. Commissioner of Social Security

W.D. Washington

Vergara v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedJune 14, 2021

Docket3:20-cv-05955

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Vergara v. Commissioner of Social Security, (W.D. Wash. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 8 ALLEN DALE VERGARA, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C20-5955-MLP 10 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 11 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 12 Defendant. 13 On September 30, 2020, this Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 14 pauperis. (Dkt. # 3.) On that same day, Plaintiff’s complaint was filed, and a summons was 15 issued to Defendant on October 1, 2020. (Dkt. ## 4-5.) On March 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed a proof 16 of service documenting that Defendant was served on December 10, 2020. (Dkt. # 6.) However, 17 to date, neither party has filed a brief, an extension request, or any form of update on this case 18 with the Court. 19 It is within the inherent power and discretion of the court to dismiss a civil case for lack 20 of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991) 21 (failure to prosecute must be unreasonable in order to support dismissal). The Court weighs five 22 factors to determine if involuntary dismissal for lack of prosecution is proper. Pagtalunan v. 23 Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Specifically, the Court considers: 1 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its 2 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 3 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Id. Dismissal is proper 4 where at least four factors support dismissal or where at least three factors “strongly” support

5 dismissal. Beck v. Pike, 2017 WL 530354, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 9, 2017) (quoting Hernandez 6 v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998)). 7 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause by June 21, 2021, why the Court 8 should not dismiss the complaint in this matter for failure to prosecute. Absent a timely response 9 to this Order, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. 10 11 Dated this 14th day of June, 2021. 12 13 A 14 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

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

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 8 ALLEN DALE VERGARA, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C20-5955-MLP 10 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 11 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 12 Defendant. 13 On September 30, 2020, this Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 14 pauperis. (Dkt. # 3.) On that same day, Plaintiff’s complaint was filed, and a summons was 15 issued to Defendant on October 1, 2020. (Dkt. ## 4-5.) On March 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed a proof 16 of service documenting that Defendant was served on December 10, 2020. (Dkt. # 6.) However, 17 to date, neither party has filed a brief, an extension request, or any form of update on this case 18 with the Court. 19 It is within the inherent power and discretion of the court to dismiss a civil case for lack 20 of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991) 21 (failure to prosecute must be unreasonable in order to support dismissal). The Court weighs five 22 factors to determine if involuntary dismissal for lack of prosecution is proper. Pagtalunan v. 23 Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Specifically, the Court considers: 1 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its 2 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 3 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Id. Dismissal is proper 4 where at least four factors support dismissal or where at least three factors “strongly” support

5 dismissal. Beck v. Pike, 2017 WL 530354, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 9, 2017) (quoting Hernandez 6 v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998)). 7 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause by June 21, 2021, why the Court 8 should not dismiss the complaint in this matter for failure to prosecute. Absent a timely response 9 to this Order, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. 10 11 Dated this 14th day of June, 2021. 12 13 A 14 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Vergara v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vergara-v-commissioner-of-social-security-wawd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack