United States District Court, C.D. California
MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION
ROZELLA A. OLIVER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27, 2016, Plaintiff Michelle Reed Flagg
(“Plaintiff”), represented by counsel, filed a
complaint appealing the denial of social security benefits.
(Dkt. No. 1.) Thereafter, the parties consented to the
undersigned handling this matter for all purposes.
February 22, 2017, counsel for Plaintiff moved to withdraw as
attorney of record. (Dkt. No. 19.) Counsel for Plaintiff made
the motion based on Plaintiff's failure to respond to
counsel's numerous communication attempts. (Id.
at 1-2.) On March 31, 2017, the Court granted counsel's
motion and ordered counsel to serve a copy of the Court's
Order on Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 21.) In the same March 31
Order, the Court set the matter for a telephonic status
conference on April 25, 2017.
April 25, 2017, former counsel and counsel for the
Commissioner appeared telephonically for the scheduled status
conference. Former counsel indicated that she had not
received the Court's March 31 Order and thus had not
served the order on Plaintiff. The Court continued the matter
to May 25, 2017, and directed former counsel to serve a copy
of the Court's March 31 Order on Plaintiff and to lodge
proof of service. (Dkt. No. 22.) The April 25 Order provided
the call-in information for the scheduled May 25, 2017
8, 2017, former counsel lodged with the Court proof of
service on Plaintiff of both the March 31 and April 25
25, 2017, the Court held a telephonic status conference in
this matter. Plaintiff did not appear for the conference. To
date, Plaintiff has not been in contact with the Court.
the foregoing and for the reasons below, the Court recommends
that Plaintiff's Complaint be DISMISSED without
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) grants district courts sua
sponte authority to dismiss actions for failure to
prosecute or for failure to comply with court orders.
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31, 82
S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962); Ferdik v.
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-63 (9th Cir. 1992).
“District courts have the inherent power to control
their dockets and, [i]n 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 omitted).
Local Rule 41-6 provides that “[a] party proceeding
pro se shall keep the Court and opposing parties
apprised of such party's current address.” The
Court may dismiss an action with or without prejudice for
want of prosecution if mail directed by the Clerk to a
pro se plaintiff's address of record is returned
undelivered by the Postal Service and the plaintiff fails to
notify the Court and opposing parties of the plaintiff's
current address “within fifteen (15) days of the
service date.” L.R. 41-6; see also Initial
Order, Section III.
determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to
prosecute or for failure to comply with court orders, a court
must weigh five factors:
(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of