United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
SARAH A. L. MERRIAM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
April 11, 2019, the self-represented plaintiff Robyn Ellen
Zuzick (“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 April 11, 2019, using a
form Social Security Complaint. 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 April 11, 2019 [Doc. #7].
2019, the parties consented to the jurisdiction of a United
States Magistrate Judge. See Docs. #11, #13, #14. On May 23,
2019, this case was transferred to the undersigned. [Doc.
#14]. On June 10, 2019, defendant Commissioner of Social
Security (“defendant”) filed the Social Security
Transcripts. [Doc. #16]. On that same date, the Court entered
its Supplemental Scheduling Order, requiring plaintiff to
file her motion to reverse and/or remand by August 9, 2019.
See Doc. #17 at 1. A copy of the Court's Supplemental
Scheduling Order was sent to plaintiff by United States Mail
on June 11, 2019.
failed to file her motion to reverse and/or remand by August
9, 2019. As a result, on August 14, 2019, the Court issued an
Order to Show Cause why this matter should not be dismissed
for plaintiff's failure to prosecute. [Doc. #18]. The
Court ordered that plaintiff file a response to the
Court's Order to Show Cause on or before August 30, 2019.
See Id. A copy of the Court's Order to Show
Cause was sent to plaintiff by United States Mail on August
September 3, 2019, presumably in response to the Court's
Order to Show Cause, plaintiff filed a motion seeking an
extension until October 29, 2019, to file her motion to
reverse and/or remand. See Doc. #19. On September 4, 2019,
the Court granted plaintiff's motion, in part, and
ordered that plaintiff file her motion on or before September
30, 2019. See Doc. #20. Because plaintiff represented that
she was trying to secure counsel, see Doc. #19 at 1, the
Court noted: “In the event that plaintiff is unable to
secure counsel, then plaintiff will be responsible for
preparing and submitting her motion to reverse and/or remand
by September 30, 2019. Should plaintiff fail to file her
motion to reverse and/or remand by September 30, 2019, this
case may be dismissed.” Doc. #20. A copy of the
Court's September 4, 2019, Order was sent to plaintiff by
United States Mail on September 6, 2019.
date, plaintiff has failed to file any motion to reverse
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 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.
consideration of the foregoing factors weighs in favor of
dismissal. First, plaintiff's non-compliance with the
Court's orders continues. Although the length of
plaintiff's non-compliance is not the most egregious that
this Court has encountered, it is nevertheless significant as
it has entirely stalled this case from proceeding.
Plaintiff's motion to reverse and/or remand was
originally due two months ago on August 9, 2019. See Doc. #17
at 1. Although the Court ...