Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wyneisha S. Coleman v. Michael J. Astrue

March 9, 2011

WYNEISHA S. COLEMAN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Alicia G. Rosenberg United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On December 28, 2009, Plaintiff Wyneisha S. Coleman ("Coleman") filed a complaint to review and set aside a decision by the Commissioner to deny benefits. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties consented to proceed before this Court on February 19 and March 2, 2010. (Dkt. Nos. 8-9.)

I.

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

On July 13, 2010, Plaintiff's counsel filed a motion to withdraw as attorney of record. On October 25, 2010, this Court issued an order granting the motion to withdraw and providing that the Order became effective upon the filing of a proof of service evidencing that Gamble was served with the Order. (Dkt. No. 17.) In addition, the order explained that if Coleman did not obtain new counsel on or before December 6, 2010, the matter would proceed with Coleman appearing pro se and with a revised schedule. (Id.) The proof of service was filed on January 5, 2011. (Dkt. No. 18.) No counsel filed a Notice of Appearance for Coleman. Nor did Coleman request an extension of time to obtain new counsel.

According to the Order, Coleman was to file and serve a motion for judgment on the pleadings on or before December 13, 2010. The Order expressly warned that "[i]f Plaintiff does not file and serve a timely motion for judgment on the pleadings, this action will be subject to dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S 626, 629-30 (1962)." (Dkt. No. 17.) The Order set forth guidelines as to the preparation of a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Id.) Coleman did not file a motion for judgment on the pleadings and did not request an extension of time to do so.

On January 26, 2011, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause that required Coleman to show cause on or before February 25, 2011, why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order. The filing and service of a motion for judgment on the pleadings on or before February 25, 2011, was expressly deemed compliance with the Order to Show Cause. (Dkt. No. 19.) The Order to Show Cause expressly warned Coleman that "[i]f Plaintiff fails to file and serve a motion for judgment on the pleadings or otherwise respond to this Order to Show Cause on or before February 25, 2011, this Court will dismiss this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962)." (Id.)

On February 3, 2011, the Order to Show Cause was returned by the postal service as undeliverable. (Dkt. No. 20.) Plaintiff has not notified the court of a change of address. Local Rule 41-6.

To date, Coleman has not filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and has not otherwise responded to the Order to Show Cause.

II.

DISCUSSION "A party proceeding pro se shall keep the Court and opposing parties apprised of such party's current address and telephone number, if any, and e-mail address, if any. If mail directed by the Clerk to a pro se plaintiff's address of record is returned undelivered by the Postal Service, and if, within fifteen (15) days of the service date, such plaintiff fails to notify, in writing, the Court and opposing parties of said plaintiff's current address, the Court may dismiss the action with or without prejudice for want of prosecution." Local Rule 41-6. Here, the Clerk served the Order to Show Cause no later than January 27, 2011. The postal service returned the Order to Show Cause as undeliverable on February 3, 2011. (Dkt. No. 20.) Coleman has not notified the Court of her current address and has not otherwise responded to the Order to Show Cause.

It is well established that a district court has authority to dismiss a plaintiff's action because of his or her failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 8 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1962) (court's authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution is necessary to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and avoid congestion in district court calendars); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss action for failure to comply with any order of the court).

In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders, a district court should consider five factors: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994) (failure to prosecute); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (failure to comply with court orders).

The first two factors -- the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court's need to manage its docket -- weigh in favor of dismissal. Plaintiff failed to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings, failed to request an extension of time to do so, and failed to respond to the Court's Order to Show Cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Given that this case cannot move forward to resolution in the absence of Plaintiff filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and given that Plaintiff's failure to notify the Court of her current address prevents the Court from being able to communicate its orders to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.