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.

Juan Cuen v. Michael J. Astrue

March 15, 2011

JUAN CUEN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: VICTOR B. Kenton United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER RE DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

On June 16, 2009, Juan Cuen (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff") filed a Complaint for review of the decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's application for disability benefits against Defendant Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security.

On July 24, 2009, the parties consented to have this action adjudicated by United States Magistrate Judge Victor B. Kenton.

On October 5, 2009, Defendant filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint.

On May 24, 2010, the Court issued a Minute Order relieving Plaintiff's counsel and deeming Plaintiff to be in pro per.

On November 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed documents entitled "Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment" and Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment," set for hearing on January 4, 2011.

On December 16, 2010, the Court issued a Minute Order vacating the hearing date for Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and ordering Defendant to file an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion within 30 days of the date of the Order.

On December 22, 2010, Defendant filed a "Motion and Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment."

On January 4, 2011, Defendant filed a document entitled "Notice to the Court Regarding Inability to Serve Plaintiff at Last Known Address."

On February 15, 2011, the Court issued an Order Requiring Plaintiff to Notify Court of Current Address.

On February 22, 2011, the United States Postal Service returned the Court's February 15, 2011 Order stamped "Not Deliverable as Addressed - Unable to Forward."

Central District of California Local Rule 41-6 provides:

"DISMISSAL - FAILURE OF PRO SE PLAINTIFF TO KEEP COURT APPRISED OF CURRENT ADDRESS - A party appearing pro se shall keep the Court apprised of such party's current address and telephone number, if any. If mail directed by the Clerk to a pro se Plaintiff's address of record is returned undelivered by the Post Office, and if such plaintiff fails to notify in writing, the Court and opposing parties within fifteen (15) days thereafter of his current address, the Court may dismiss the action with or without prejudice for want of prosecution."

Here, Plaintiff has failed to notify the Court of his current address within 15 days of the service date of the undelivered Order to Show Cause described above, as required by Local Rule 41-6. His failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address renders this case indistinguishable from Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988). There, in affirming the District Court's dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute, the Ninth Circuit observed that "[I]t would be absurd to require the District Court to hold a case in abeyance indefinitely just because it is ...


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.