Hall v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 13

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not be Dismissed For Failure to Prosecute or Obey the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/29/2011. Show Cause Response due by 8/15/2011. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EDWARD L. HALL,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,

15
16

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11-cv-00693-JLT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE OR OBEY THE
COURT’S ORDER

17
18

Edward L. Hall (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this action

19

regarding Social Security. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his complaint on May 2, 2011.

20

(Doc. 1). On June 29, 2011, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found he failed to state

21

facts upon which the Court’s jurisdiction depends, because Plaintiff failed to allege he had

22

received a decision of an administrative law judge or review of the decision by the Social

23

Security Administration. (Doc. 12 at 3-4).

24

Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies of the

25

pleadings, and including facts such that the Court could determine that it has jurisdiction over the

26

matter within twenty-one days, or by July 20, 2011. (Doc. 12 at 5) Id. at 5. Plaintiff was notified

27

that failure to file an amended complaint would be considered a failure to comply with an order

28

of the Court and would result in dismissal of the action. Id. at 5. However, Plaintiff has failed to
1

1
2

file an amended complaint, or otherwise respond to the Court’s order.
The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or

3

of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the

4

Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” LR 110. “District

5

courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may

6

impose sanctions including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los

7

Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based

8

on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply

9

with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal

10

for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal

11

Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order);

12

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute

13

and to comply with local rules).

14

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within FOURTEEN (14) days of the

15

date of service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute or

16

to follow the Court’s Order.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated: July 29, 2011
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2