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)

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