United States District Court, D. Connecticut
CEDRIC S. NEWMAN, III
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
SARAH A. L. MERRIAM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
February 8, 2019, the self-represented plaintiff Cedric S.
Newman, III (“plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for
Review of Social Security Administration Decision. [Doc. #1].
For the reasons that follow, the Court DISMISSES,
without prejudice, plaintiff's Complaint
[Doc. #1] for failure to prosecute and
failure to comply with the Court's orders.
filed the Complaint in this matter on February 8, 2019, using
a form complaint for Review of a Social Security
Administration Decision. See Doc. #1, Complaint.
Simultaneously therewith, plaintiff also filed a motion
seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2], which
the Court granted on February 11, 2019 [Doc. #7].
March 21, 2019, the parties filed a Consent to Jurisdiction
by a United States Magistrate Judge. [Doc. #11]. On April 9,
2019, defendant Commissioner of Social Security
(“defendant”) filed the Social Security
Transcripts. [Doc. #12]. On that same date, the Court entered
its Supplemental Scheduling Order, requiring plaintiff to
file his motion to reverse and/or remand by June 8, 2019. See
Doc. #13 at 1. A copy of the Court's Supplemental
Scheduling Order was sent to plaintiff by United States Mail
on that same date.
June 8, 2019, fell on a Saturday, plaintiff's motion to
reverse and/or remand was due by Monday, June 10, 2019.
Plaintiff failed to file his motion to reverse and/or remand
by that date. As a result, on June 14, 2019, the Court issued
an Order to Show Cause why this matter should not be
dismissed for plaintiff's failure to prosecute. [Doc.
#14]. The Court ordered that plaintiff file a response to the
Court's Order to Show Cause on or before the close of
business on June 28, 2019. See Id. A copy of the
Court's Order to Show Cause was sent to plaintiff by
United States Mail on June 14, 2019.
26, 2019, presumably in response to the Court's Order to
Show Cause, plaintiff filed a motion seeking an additional 60
days to file his motion to reverse and/or remand and
statement of material facts. See Doc. #15. On June 27, 2019,
the Court granted plaintiff's motion, and afforded him an
additional 30 days beyond what he had requested in his
motion. See Doc. #16. The Court ordered plaintiff to file his
motion on or before September 27, 2019. See Id.
Because plaintiff represented that he was trying to secure
counsel, see Doc. #15 at 1, the Court noted: “In the
event that plaintiff is unable to secure counsel, then
plaintiff will be responsible for preparing and submitting
his motion to reverse and/or remand by September 27, 2019.
Should plaintiff fail to file his motion to reverse and/or
remand by September 27, 2019, this case may be
dismissed.” Doc. #16. A copy of the Court's June
27, 2019, Order was sent to plaintiff by United States Mail
on June 28, 2019.
1, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel
[Doc. #17], which the Court denied on July 2, 2019, [Doc.
#18]. A copy of the Court's July 2, 2019, Order was sent
to plaintiff by United States Mail on that same date.
date, plaintiff has failed to file any motion to reverse
and/or remand. Since July 1, 2019, plaintiff has not filed
any documents with the Court.
district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case ...
for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court explained that
such authority is governed by the control necessarily vested
in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the
orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”
Reynel v. Barnhart, No. 01CV6482(RLE), 2002 WL
2022429, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2002) (citation and
quotation marks omitted). “Although not explicitly
authorized by Rule 41(b), a court may dismiss a complaint for
failure to prosecute sua sponte.” Zappin v.
Doyle, 756 Fed.Appx. 110, 111-12 (2d Cir. 2019).
41(b) recognizes the district courts' power to dismiss a
complaint for failure of the plaintiff to comply with a court
order, treating noncompliance as a failure to prosecute.
Courts have repeatedly found that dismissal of an action is
warranted when a litigant, whether represented or instead
proceeding pro se, fails to comply with legitimate court
directives.” Bonnette v. Comm'r of Soc.
Sec., No. 16CV6398(ENV), 2018 WL 6173434, at *2
(E.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2018). When considering whether to dismiss
an action for failure to prosecute, courts generally consider
the following five factors:
“(1) the duration of the plaintiff's failure to
comply with the court order, (2) whether plaintiff was on
notice that failure to comply would result in dismissal, (3)
whether the defendants are likely to be prejudiced by further
delay in the proceedings, (4) a balancing of the court's
interest in managing its docket with the plaintiff's
interest in receiving a fair chance to be heard, and (5)
whether the judge has adequately considered a sanction less
drastic than dismissal.” Lucas v. Miles, 84
F.3d 532, 535 (2d Cir. 1996). No. single factor is generally
dispositive. Nita v. Connecticut Dep't of Envtl.
Prot., 16 F.3d 482, 485 (2d Cir. 1994).
Baptiste v. Sommers, 768 F.3d 212, 216 (2d Cir.
2014); accord Rozell v. Berryhill, No.
18CV969(AJN)(JLC), 2019 WL 1320514, at *1-2 ...