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.

Gray v. Colvin

United States District Court, C.D. California

July 7, 2015

JAMES ALLAN GRAY, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS

JAY C. GANDHI, Magistrate Judge.

I.

BACKGROUND

On December 12, 2013, plaintiff James Allan Gray ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint, seeking review of the denial by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration of his applications for social security disability benefits. Pursuant to the Court's April 21, 2015 Order, Plaintiff was directed to submit a joint report to the Court regarding the status of this action. [Dkt. No. 18.]

On June 5, 2015, Defendant filed a status report, which Plaintiff did not join. [Dkt. No. 19.] Defendant stated that she had attempted to contact Plaintiff by telephone, without success, on May 28, June 1, and June 5, 2015, and had sent Plaintiff a letter by overnight mail on June 1, 2015. [ Id. ] Plaintiff failed to respond. [ Id. ]

On June 15, 2015, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause ("OSC"), directing Plaintiff to show cause, no later than June 29, 2015, why he had failed to participate in the submission of a joint report to the Court. (OSC at 1.) Plaintiff was warned that his failure to timely respond to this Order may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with court orders, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." ( Id. at 2 (emphasis in original).)

As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed any response to the OSC.

II.

DISCUSSION

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the Court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-33 (1962); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-63 (9th Cir. 1992). "District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and, in the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, dismissal of a case." Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260 (internal quotation marks, brackets, and ellipsis omitted).

In determining whether to dismiss a case under Rule 41(b), a court must weigh 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 ...

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.