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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?