(SS)(PS) McCoy v. Commissioner of Social Security
2:23-cv-00882-DJC-KJN
E.D. Cal.Oct 19, 2023Background
- Pro se plaintiff Leila McCoy filed two Social Security complaints in May 2023 and was granted in forma pauperis status.
- The court related the two cases in July 2023.
- Subsequent mailings from the court to McCoy were returned as undeliverable and McCoy did not update her address despite multiple notices.
- Local Rules require pro se parties to keep the court informed of their current address; returned mail plus no contact can lead to dismissal.
- The magistrate applied the five Ferdik factors (public interest in expedition, docket management, prejudice to defendants, policy favoring merits, availability of lesser sanctions) and concluded dismissal was appropriate.
- The magistrate recommended dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and directed the clerk to assign a district judge; parties were given 14 days to object to the findings and recommendations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal is warranted for failure to keep the court informed of an address | No response; no argument presented | Court mail was returned; McCoy failed to comply with Local Rules and duty to notify court | Court found McCoy failed to keep court apprised and dismissal is permissible |
| Whether dismissal under Rule 41(b) is appropriate given the Ferdik factors | No response | Ferdik factors favor dismissal given delay and noncompliance | Court concluded Ferdik factors support dismissal |
| Whether less drastic alternatives remain available | No response | Court previously granted IFP and attempted contact; no viable lesser sanctions without current address | Court found lesser alternatives exhausted and dismissal appropriate |
| Whether public policy favoring merits or prejudice to defendant counsels against dismissal | No response | Prejudice to defendant slight but present; policy favoring merits outweighed by other factors | Court held prejudice and public-policy concerns did not prevent dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (courts may act sua sponte to dismiss for failure to prosecute and have inherent powers to control their dockets)
- Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2005) (district courts may dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or comply with orders)
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (sets forth factors a court must weigh when dismissing for failure to comply with court orders)
- Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 2002) (applies and discusses the Ferdik factors in Rule 41(b) context)
- Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988) (pro se litigant bears burden of keeping court apprised of address; dismissal appropriate when court cannot contact litigant)
- King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565 (9th Cir. 1987) (pro se litigants are bound by procedural rules applicable to counsel)