IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 9, 2009
ROBERT N. COGBURN, JR., PLAINTIFF,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On October 2, 2009, the court directed plaintiff to show cause in writing within 30 days why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. Specifically, the order to show cause was issued because plaintiff failed to file a dispositive motion within the time permitted under the court's scheduling order.
In response to the order to show cause, plaintiff states: Request a filing for Dispositive Motion in subject court action.
I appologize [sic] for my tardiness and ignorance in the court's scheduling. My disability is at this time progressing at a pace that I am not able to think and comprehend at the level when this action was brought.
Please excuse my ignorance.
Plaintiff has not filed any kind of dispositive motion. The court will construe plaintiff's response as a request for additional time to comply and, so construed, will grant the request.
Plaintiff shall have an additional 45 days from the date of this order within which to explain why this action should not be dismissed. The order to show cause will not be discharged, but plaintiff is advised that the filing of a dispositive motion within the time provided will constitute an adequate response and will result in the order to show cause being discharged. If, however, plaintiff cannot adequately explain his failure to prosecute, or does not file a dispositive motion within the time provided, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.