Lundell v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/2/2010. (Show Cause Response due by 12/30/2010.)(Kusamura, W)
(SS) Lundell v. Commissioner of Social Security
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pamela Lundell ("Plaintiff") commenced this action against the defendant, Commissioner of Social Security, on September 21, 2009. (Doc. 1). The Court issued its Scheduling Order on September 22, 2009. (Doc. 5). By stipulation of the parties, the time for Plaintiff to serve a confidential letter brief on the defendant was extended until August 4, 2010. (Doc. 16 at 1). According to the Scheduling Order, the defendant should have served a response to this letter within 35 days of service after the letter brief, or by approximately September 8, 2010. (See Doc. 5 at 2). Where the parties do not agree to a remand, an opening brief must be filed with the Court within 30 days of service. Id. Therefore, Plaintiff's opening brief should have been filed by October 8, 2010. In the Scheduling Order, the parties were notified that "the Court will allow a single th irty (30) day extension of any part of [the] scheduling order by stipulation of the parties." 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
) Case No.: 1:09-cv-01673 JLT ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ) ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED ) v. ) ) ) MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) ) Defendant. ) _______________________________________ )
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
(D o c . 5 at 4). This stipulation was used by the parties in granting Plaintiff an extention to f ile her confidential letter. Also, the parties were informed that, with the exception of the s in g le stipulation, any requests to modify the Scheduling Order must be made by written m o tio n and would only be granted for good cause. Id. Further, the parties were warned that v io la tio n s of the order may result in sanctions pursuant to Local Rule 110. Id. Notably, no re q u e s ts have been made to the Court to modify the Scheduling Order. The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: "Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court." LR 110. "District courts have inherent power to control their dockets," and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party's failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file her opening brief within 21 days of the date of service of this Order or show cause why the action should not be dismissed for her failure to prosecute this matter and her failure to follow the Court's Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 2, 2010 9j7khi /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?