Vasquez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 14

ORDER to Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed for His Failure to Prosecute and Failure to Comply With the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/25/2014. Show Cause Response due by 7/7/2014. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, )
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
PETE HERNANDEZ VASQUEZ,

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01519 - JLT
ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR HIS FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S
ORDER

On May 20, 2014, the parties stipulated for Plaintiff Pete Hernandez Vasquez (“Plaintiff”) to

18

have an extension of time to file an opening brief in this action. (Doc. 12.) Accordingly, the Court

19

ordered Plaintiff to “file an opening brief on or before June 20, 2014.” (Doc. 13, emphasis in original).

20

To date, Plaintiff has failed to file an opening brief in compliance with the Court’s order, or take any

21

further action to prosecute the matter.

22

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a

23

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

24

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have

25

inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions

26

including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

27

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute

28

an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v.
1

1

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order);

2

Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with

3

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

4

prosecute and to comply with local rules).

5

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show why the action should not be dismissed for his

6

failure to prosecute and failure comply with the Court’s order or, in the alternative, to file an opening

7

brief no later than July 7, 2014.

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 25, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2