Campbell v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

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 11/1/2016. 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

PHIL CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

CAROLYN COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

15
Defendant.
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01761 - 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

Phil Campbell initiated this action by filing a complaint on November 19, 2015, seeking judicial

18

review of the decision to denying his application for Social Security benefits. (Doc. 1) On December

19

29, 2015, the Court entered its Scheduling Order, setting forth the applicable deadlines. (Doc. 10)

20

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the parties exchanged their confidential briefs, with Defendant

21

serving the Commissioner’s response on September 29, 2016. (Doc. 18)
In the Scheduling Order, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an opening brief addressing “each

22
23

claimed error” by the administrative law judge “within thirty (30) days of service of respondent’s

24

response.” (See Doc. 10 at 2; id. at 4, explaining the applicable briefing deadlines) Accordingly,

25

Plaintiff was to file his opening brief in this action no later than October 31, 2016.1 Plaintiff did not

26

do so.

27
28

1

The deadline of October 29, 2016 fell on a Saturday. As a result, Plaintiff’s opening brief was to be filed no
later than Monday, October 31, 2016.

1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

prosecute and to comply with local rules).

12

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

13

of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute or to follow the

14

Court’s Order, or to file an opening brief.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 1, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2