Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
AMANDA S.,
Plaintiff,
v. Civ. No. 25-582 JCH/GBW
FRANK BISIGNANO,
Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration,
Defendant.
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a review of the record and the
Honorable Judith Herrera’s Order of Reference, doc. 11, referring this case to the
undersigned for analysis, findings of fact, evidentiary hearings, and recommendations
for its ultimate disposition. Having reviewed the record, the undersigned
RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff’s Complaint (doc. 1) against the Social
Security Administration WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed her pro se Complaint against “United States Disability” on June 20,
2025. Doc. 1. On September 22, 2025, Plaintiff clarified that she was “seeking review of
a decision previously made by the Commissioner of Social Security” and that she
intended to name the Social Security Administration as the defendant. Doc. 10 at 1. The
Court substituted the proper defendant and issued a briefing schedule. Docs. 14, 15.
Case 2:25-cv-00582-JCH-GBW Document 21 Filed 03/20/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Per the briefing schedule, the deadline for Plaintiff to file her Motion to Reverse or
Remand to the Administrative Agency was January 26, 2026.1 See docs. 15, 19, 20. On
February 24, 2026, the undersigned issued an Order to Show Cause requiring Plaintiff
to explain in writing why the Court should not dismiss the case for failure to prosecute.
Doc. 20. As of March 20, 2026, Plaintiff has not responded to the Order to Show Cause
nor has she filed her Motion to Reverse or Remand to the Administrative Agency.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
The Court may dismiss an action, sua sponte, if “the plaintiff fails to prosecute or
comply with…a court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199,
1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003) (holding that despite Rule 41(b)’s reference to a defendant’s
motion, “the Rule has long been interpreted to permit courts to dismiss actions sua
sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or
court’s orders”). A dismissal for failure to comply with a court order under Rule 41(b)
“operates as an adjudication on the merits.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Although pro se
litigants’ pleadings are held “‘to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted
by lawyers[,]’ [t]he pro se litigant ‘nevertheless must follow the same rules of procedure
that govern other litigants.’” Jaramillo v. Frewing, 347 F. Supp. 3d 827, 839 (D.N.M. 2018)
(citations omitted).
1 Plaintiff’s Motion was due thirty days after the Administrative record was served. Doc. 15. That date
was January 25, 2026, a Sunday. As such, Plaintiff’s Motion was due the next day, January 26, 2026. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C).
Case 2:25-cv-00582-JCH-GBW Document 21 Filed 03/20/26 Page 2 of 4

3
While a court should impose “dismissal for failure to prosecute…only after
careful exercise of judicial discretion,” “dismissal is an appropriate disposition against a
party who disregards court orders and fails to proceed as required by court rules.” U.S.
ex rel. Jimenez v. Health Net, Inc., 400 F.3d 853, 855 (10th Cir. 2005). In determining
whether dismissal is a just sanction, courts consider: “(1) the degree of actual prejudice
to the defendant; (2) the amount of interference with the judicial process; (3) the
culpability of the litigant; (4) whether the court warned the party in advance that
dismissal of the action would be the likely sanction for noncompliance; and (5) the
efficacy of lesser sanctions.” Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916, 921 (10th Cir. 1992)
(quotations and citations omitted). “The factors do not create a rigid test but are simply
criteria for the court to consider.” Gripe v. City of Enid, Okl., 312 F.3d 1184, 1188 (10th
Cir. 2002) (citing Ehrenhaus, 965 F.2d at 921).
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff has failed to prosecute her case. Per the briefing schedule, Plaintiff was
required to file her Motion to Reverse or Remand to the Administrative Agency by
January 26, 2026. See docs. 15, 19, 20. To date, no such motion or motion for extension of
time has been filed. Although Plaintiff’s failure to file her Motion to Reverse or Remand
to the Administrative Agency has not caused a high degree of prejudice to the
Defendant, her lack of participation has substantially interfered with the judicial
process. The case cannot move forward without Plaintiff first identifying the issues on
Case 2:25-cv-00582-JCH-GBW Document 21 Filed 03/20/26 Page 3 of 4

4
appeal and her arguments in favor of remand. Plaintiff is culpable for her failure to
prosecute. Additionally, Plaintiff was warned in the undersigned’s Order to Show
Cause that sanctions, up to and including dismissal, could be imposed. See doc. 20 at 2.
Despite this warning, Plaintiff did not respond, nor did she file a Motion to Reverse or
Remand to the Administrative Agency, indicating that lesser sanctions would not be
effective.
IV. CONCLUSION
Because the Ehrenhaus factors weigh in favor of dismissal, the undersigned
recommends that Plaintiff’s Complaint (doc. 1) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
However, if Plaintiff files a Motion to Reverse or Remand to the Administrative Agency
within 14 days of entry of this Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition, the
undersigned will withdraw this recommendation.
_____________________________________________
GREGORY B. WORMUTH
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THE PARTIES ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT WITHIN 14 DAYS OF SERVICE of
a copy of these Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition they may file written
objections with the Clerk of the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party
must file any objections with the Clerk of the District Court within the fourteen-day
period if that party wants to have appellate review of the proposed findings and
recommended disposition. If no objections are filed, no appellate review will be
allowed.
Case 2:25-cv-00582-JCH-GBW Document 21 Filed 03/20/26 Page 4 of 4