McConville v. Saul
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:17-cv-06303
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In McConville v. Saul, Judge Gilliam ordered Clara McConville to explain why her Social Security case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Clara McConville, whose case was subject to a possible dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute; and Andrew Saul, the defendant.
What happened
McConville v. Saul is a Social Security review case filed by Clara McConville against Andrew Saul. After filing the case, McConville sent no further communications to the court, missed her deadline to file a request for judgment, and did not respond to repeated orders about proceeding before a magistrate judge.
The court ordered McConville to show cause—that is, explain—why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice because she failed to move the case forward. She was ordered to file a statement of no more than two pages by September 24, 2019. This order did not itself dismiss the case.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. issued the order on September 11, 2019. He relied on the court’s authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) to dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or follow court orders.
The detailed version
- McConville v. Saul · No. 4:17-cv-06303
- Haywood Gilliam
- Sept. 11, 2019
Background
Clara McConville filed this Social Security review action against Andrew Saul on October 31, 2017. The court stated that it had received no further communications from McConville after the case was filed. She did not file her motion for summary judgment by the required deadline and did not respond to multiple orders directing her to file a consent or declination concerning proceeding before a magistrate judge.
Court’s action
The court issued an order to show cause. This required McConville to explain why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court directed her to file a statement of no more than two pages by September 24, 2019.
Reasoning and disposition
The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or comply with court rules or orders. The court also stated that a defendant does not have to file a motion for a district court to dismiss a case on its own for failure to prosecute. The order did not dismiss the case; it required McConville to respond before the court considered dismissal without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.