Conley v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Prosecute and Failure to Comply With the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/20/2014. Show Cause Response due within 14 days. (Hall, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANA L. CONLEY, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 v. CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:13-cv-02051 - JLT ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER Plaintiff Lana Conley initiated this action by filing a complaint against Carolyn Colvin, Acting 18 Commissioner of Social Security on December 16, 2013. (Doc. 1.) On February 18, 2014, the Court 19 entered its Scheduling Order, setting forth the applicable deadlines. (Doc. 7.) Pursuant to the 20 Scheduling Order, the administrative record was lodged on June 13, 2014. (Doc. 11.) 21 Plaintiff’s counsel, Lawrence Rohlfing filed a motion to withdraw as attorney of record, which 22 was granted by the Court on October 15, 2014. (Docs. 11-12). The Court ordered Plaintiff to file her 23 Opening Brief “no later than November 17, 2014.” (Doc. 16 at 3, emphasis omitted.) To date, 24 Plaintiff has failed to file an Opening Brief, or otherwise respond to the Court’s order. Notably, she 25 was advised that failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in dismissal of the action 26 pursuant to Local Rule 110. (Id. at 4.) 27 28 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 1 1 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have 2 inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions 3 including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 4 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute 5 an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. 6 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 7 requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 8 (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th 9 Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 10 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of 11 service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for her failure to prosecute or to follow 12 the Court’s Order, or in the alternative to file her opening brief. 13 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 20, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?