Date: APR 13 1993
Case No.: 90-ERA-10

In the Matter of:

Mansour Guity,
    Complainant

    v.

Tennessee Valley Authority,
    Respondent

Before: John M. Vittone
    Deputy Chief Judge

   On February 17, 1993, the undersigned issued an Order to Show Cause why the stay ordered by Administrative Law Judge Rudolf L. Jansen based on the Complainant's mental incapacity to pursue the claim should not be lifted. The response to this Order was required to be received by this Office on or before the close of business (5:00 p.m. EST) on March 29, 1993 to be timely.

   The Respondent's response to the Order to Show Cause was received by this Office on March 26, 1993. It provided a copy of an Order issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on September 17, 1992 administratively terminating the Complainant's action in that court. The Order permitted the Complainant to move for reopening of the case within thirty days of his physician declaring he is competent to do prosecute his case, but warned that "failure to timely comply with this facet of the order shall result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice. The Respondent stated that Complainant's counsel indicated to it that such a motion would be filed in the near future. The Respondent also indicated that it had no objection to a lifting of the stay in the administrative adjudication before this Office and the scheduling of the case for hearing.

   The Complainant did not file a response to the February 17, 1993 Order to Show Cause.

   In view of the Complainant's failure to file a response to the Order to Show Cause, three grounds have emerged

for dismissal of the request for a hearing: (1) failure to comply with a lawful order of the administrative law judge,¹ (2) abandonment of the complaint,² and (3) failure to prosecute.³ Accordingly,

   IT IS ORDERED that the stay of hearing in this matter is hereby VACATED.⁴

   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complainant SHOW CAUSE why a Recommended Order of Dismissal should not be issued in this matter based on failure to comply with a lawful order, abandonment, and failure to prosecute. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 18.39(b) and 24.5(e)(4)(ii). The Complainant's response must be received by this Office on or before the close of business on April 28, 1993 in order to be timely. If the Complainant files a timely response to this Order to Show Cause, the Respondent shall have until the close of business on May 10 , 1993 to file a response.

At Washington, D.C.
Entered:
by:
       John M. Vittone
    Deputy Chief Judge

JMV/trs

¹29 C.F.R. § 24.5(c)(4)(i)(B); see McCrumb v. Westinghouse Radiological Services, Inc., 89-ERA-42 (Sec'y Apr. 9, 1992).

²29 C.F.R. § 18.39(b); see Lint v. Illinois Power Co., 87-ERA-18 (Sec'y Mar. 16, 1989).

³29 C.F.R. 24.5(e)(4)(i)(B); see Gore v. CDI Corp., 91-ERA-14 (Sec'y July 8, 1992).

⁴A ruling on the sealing of the record is reserved until a determination is made whether an involuntary dismissal of this complainant will be recommended to the Secretary, unless this Office receives a request by a non-party to review the administrative record in this case, in which case further appropriate action will be considered immediately.