Goolsby v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 4

ORDER to Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for Failure to Comply With the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/13/2015. 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

CLIFFORD DEAN GOOLSBY,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00615 - JLT
ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S
ORDER

16
17

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint and an application to proceed in forma

18

pauperis on April 2015. (Docs. 1-2.) The Court reviewed Plaintiff’s application, but found the

19

information provided was insufficient to determine whether Plaintiff satisfies the requirements of 28

20

U.S.C. § 1915(a). (Doc. 3.) Because the Court was “unable to determine how Plaintiff is supporting

21

himself or if he is dependent upon another individual who would be able to pay the filing fee,” Plaintiff

22

was ordered to file an amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis including “information on how

23

Plaintiff is supporting himself, or his dependence on another.” (Id. at 2.) To date, Plaintiff has not

24

complied with the Court’s order.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8
9

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of service
of this Order why sanctions should not be imposed for failure comply the Court’s Order or, in the

10

alternative, to file an amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is advised that failure

11

to comply with this order may result in denial of his application to proceed in forma pauperis.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 13, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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