The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING THE ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDERS AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
Beverly Jean Gibson ("Plaintiff") is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action seeking judicial review of a determination of the Social Security Administration. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED.
I. Factual and Procedural History
Plaintiff initiated this action on June 11, 2012, by filing her complaint. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court screened Plaintiff's complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend on June 15, 2012. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint on June 28, 2012 (Doc. 7), which the Court approved for service on July 2, 2012. (Doc. 8). The Court directed Plaintiff to "complete and submit to the Court the 'Notice of Submission of Documents in Social Security Appeal Form" issued by the Clerk. Id. at 4.
The instructions issued in the form directed Plaintiff to provide the Clerk's Office with the following documents:
1. The original Summons and five (5) copies of the Summons
2. Five (5) copies of the Order directing service by the U.S. Marshal
3. Five (5) copies of the Complaint
4. One completed USM-285 form addressed to the Social Security Administration
The Clerk's Office notified the Court that Plaintiff failed to complete the forms required for service 5 and attempted to supplement her First Amended Complaint with additional exhibits and documents 6 not approved for service. Therefore, on July 20, 2012, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to 7 comply with the instructions for service. (Doc. 11). 8
On August 24, 2012, the Clerk's Office notified the Court that Plaintiff submitted the forms a
9 second time, but once again, Plaintiff failed to comply with the instructions. Plaintiff failed to complete the USM-285 form and did not use the Summons issued by the Court. Further, Plaintiff provided copies of only a portion of the First Amended Complaint, and copies of other extraneous documents. Because the documents provided were insufficient for service, the Court issued an order to Plaintiff on August 29, 2012, directing her to comply with the instructions for service. (Doc. 13). The Court informed Plaintiff that failure to obey the Court's order would result in dismissal of the action pursuant to Local Rule 110. Id. at 2.
Plaintiff failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the Court's order, and as a result the Court issued an order to show cause for her failure on September 24, 2012. (Doc. 14). The Court explained once again that failure of a party to comply with the Court's orders may be grounds for sanctions, including dismissal of the action. Therefore, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed or, in the alternative, to file the documents identified with the Clerk. Id. at 2.
On September 26, 2012, the Clerk's office notified the Court that Plaintiff filed a third set of incomplete service documents. For example, Plaintiff filed five copies of only page one of the First Amended Complaint which she attached to page two of the Order directing her compliance. Again, the documents provided were insufficient for service. In addition, Plaintiff again filed copies of other documents not authorized for service by the Court. Therefore, on October 1, 2012, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff "one final opportunity to comply with the terms of the instructions for service of the First Amended Complaint." (Doc. 15 at 2) (emphasis in original). The Court reminded Plaintiff an action may be ...