Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 16

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply With the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/7/2015. Show Cause Response due within 7 days. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

APRIL TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
CAROLYN COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

15
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01033 - JLT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS
SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S
ORDER

16
17

On March 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to file an opening brief.

18

(Doc. 14.) The Court granted the request, and ordered Plaintiff to file an opening brief no later than

19

May 6, 2015.1 (Doc. 15.) However, Plaitniff failed to file her opening and did not seek a further

20

extension of time.

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may impose sanctions based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or

27
1

28

Notably, the Court granted an extension of 50 days based upon the stipulation of the parties, extending the filing
deadline from March 18, 2015 to May 6, 2015.

1

1

failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963

2

F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (imposing sanctions for failure to comply with an order); Malone

3

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

4

with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (imposing sanctions

5

for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

6

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within seven days of the date of service of

7

this Order why sanctions should not be imposed for failure comply the Court’s Order or, in the

8

alternative, to file her opening brief.

9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 7, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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