Sandie Jo Jones v. Nancy A. Berryhill

Filing 14

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 9/12/2017: To date, Plaintiff has not filed a motion for summary judgment or sought an extension of time within which to do so. (See generally Dkt.) Therefore, plaintiff is ordered to show cause, in writing and within fourteen (14) days of the date this Order, why this case should not be dismissed based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute. Plaintiff is hereby warned that failure to respond to this Order may result in the dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court order. IT IS SO ORDERED. (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-1789 DMG (FFM)

Title

SANDIE JO JONES v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Comm’r of Social Security

Present: The Honorable

Date

August 29, 2017

Frederick F. Mumm, United States Magistrate Judge

James Munoz

N/A

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None present

None present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On April 20, 2017, the Court issued a Case Management Order (“CMO”), setting
out the various procedures and deadlines in this case. (Dkt. 8.) Therein, the Court
required the parties to submit a Joint Stipulation setting forth the parties’ arguments with
respect to Plaintiff’s claims. (Id. at 3.)
On June 5, 2017, Defendant suggested that the Court modify the CMO to allow
the parties to file cross-motions for summary judgment, rather than a Joint Stipulation.
(Dkt. 10.)
The Court agreed that, given Plaintiff’s pro se status, cross-motions for summary
judgment were appropriate. (Dkt. 11.) Accordingly, the Court issued an Order
modifying the CMO and requiring, among other things, that Plaintiff file a motion for
summary judgment within sixty days after service of Defendant’s Answer. (Id. at 1.)
Defendant filed an Answer on June 14, 2017. (Dkt. 12.) Attached to Defendant’s
Answer is a proof of service indicating that Defendant served the Answer on Plaintiff
on June 14, 2017. (Id. at 3.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was
due on or before August 14, 2017.
To date, Plaintiff has not filed a motion for summary judgment or sought an
extension of time within which to do so. (See generally Dkt.) Therefore, plaintiff is
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-1789 DMG (FFM)

Date

August 29, 2017

Title

SANDIE JO JONES v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Comm’r of Social Security

ordered to show cause, in writing and within fourteen (14) days of the date this Order,
why this case should not be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Plaintiff
is hereby warned that failure to respond to this Order may result in the dismissal of this
case for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

JM

Page 2 of 2