Christina Travalja v. Carolyn W. Colvin

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 C.T., Case No. 2:24-cv-10688-SHK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 13 v. 14 LELAND DUDEK,1 Acting 15 Commissioner of Social Security, 16 Defendant. [17] 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 On December 11, 2024, Plaintiff C.T. (“Plaintiff”), who is represented by 20 counsel (“Counsel”), filed a Complaint (“Complaint” or “Compl.”) seeking judicial 21 review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security 22 Administration (“Commissioner,” “Agency,” or “Defendant”) denying Plaintiff’s 23 application for disability benefits under the Social Security Act. Electronic Case 24 Filing Number (“ECF No.”) 1, Compl. 25 On February 10, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion to Extend the Schedule in 26 the Court’s Case Management Order (“Motion”). ECF No. 9, Motion. The Court [27] 1 granted Defendant’s Motion the following day (“Order”), which resulted, in 2 relevant part, in Plaintiff’s Opening Brief (“Brief”) being due on April 11, 2025. 3 ECF No. 10, Order. Plaintiff did not timely file Plaintiff’s opening brief. 4 Therefore, on April 24, 2025, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause (“OSC”) by May 5 2, 2025, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and follow 6 Court orders. Plaintiff was instructed that Plaintiff could satisfy the OSC “by 7 filing Plaintiff’s Brief by the date stated above.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff was “warned 8 that failure to satisfy th[e] order will result in the case being dismissed for 9 failure to prosecute and follow Court orders.” Id. (emphasis in original). 10 As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed Plaintiff’s Brief as ordered 11 or otherwise participated in this action. 12 II. DISCUSSION 13 District courts have sua sponte authority to dismiss actions for failure to 14 prosecute or to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. 15 Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. 16 U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating courts may dismiss an 17 action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff’s 18 failure to prosecute or comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the 19 court’s orders); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (ordering 20 dismissal for failure to comply with court orders). 21 In deciding whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute or comply with court 22 orders, a district court must consider five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in 23 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) 24 the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 25 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson 26 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza, [27] 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting out similar five factors as in Henderson). 1 least three factors ‘strongly’ support dismissal.’” Neal v. Reslan, No. CV 192 09291 PA (ASx), 2020 WL 754366 , at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2020) (quoting 3 Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998). In a case 4 involving sua sponte dismissal, however, the fifth Henderson factor regarding the 5 availability of less drastic sanctions warrants special focus. Hernandez, 138 F.3d 6 at 399 . 7 Here, the first two factors—public interest in expeditious resolution of 8 litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket—weigh in favor of dismissal. 9 Despite being reminded of Plaintiff’s obligation to file Plaintiff’s Brief, Plaintiff 10 has failed to do so or to respond to the Court’s OSC. This failure to prosecute and 11 follow Court orders hinders the Court’s ability to move this case toward 12 disposition and suggests Plaintiff does not intend to litigate this action diligently. 13 The third factor—prejudice to Defendants—also weighs in favor of 14 dismissal. A rebuttable presumption of prejudice to a defendant arises when 15 plaintiffs unreasonably delay prosecution of an action. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 16 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff has not offered 17 any excuse for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders and respond in 18 a timely manner and this “prejudice” element thus favors dismissal. 19 The fourth factor—public policy in favor of deciding cases on the merits— 20 ordinarily weighs against dismissal. However, it is Plaintiff’s responsibility to 21 move litigation towards disposition at a reasonable pace and to avoid dilatory and 22 evasive tactics. See Morris v. Morgan Stanley, 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 Plaintiff has not met this responsibility despite having been: (1) instructed on 24 Plaintiff’s responsibilities; (2) granted sufficient time in which to discharge them; 25 and (3) warned of the consequences of failure to do so. Under these 26 circumstances, though this policy favors Plaintiff, it does not outweigh Plaintiff’s 27 failure to obey Court orders or to file responsive documents within the time l The fifth factor—availability of less drastic sanctions—also weighs in favor 2 | of dismissal. The Court cannot move the case toward disposition without 3 | Plaintiff's compliance with Court orders or participation in this litigation. Despite 4 | the Court ordering a response in the OSC and providing sufficient time to respond, 5 | Plaintiff has shown Plaintiff is either unwilling or unable to comply with Court 6 | orders or otherwise cooperate in prosecuting this action by failing to file 7 | responsive documents in the extended time frame allotted. The Court is not aware 8 | of any lesser sanction that is available in this case. See Henderson, 779 F.2d at 9 | 1424 (“The district court need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before 10 | finally dismissing a case but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.”). 11 Accordingly, because it appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this litigation, 12 | and because Plaintiff has repeatedly defied Court orders, the Court DISMISSES 13 | this case, without prejudice. 14 Il. ORDER 15 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT Judgment be entered 16 | DISMISSING this case without prejudice. [17] 18 | DATED: 05/08/2025 Mp a ae 19 United States Magistrate hudge “an