Campbell v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 5

ORDER to PLAINTIFF to SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed and His Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Should Not Be Denied for Failure to Comply With the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/17/2015. 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
12
13
14
15

PHIL CAMPBELL,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, )
)
Defendant.
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01761 - JLT
ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED AND
HIS APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS SHOULD NOT BE DENIED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S
ORDER

16
17

Phil Campbell initiated this action for judicial review of the administrative decision denying his

18

application for Social Security benefits by filing a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis

19

on November 19, 2015. (Docs. 1, 3) The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without

20

prepayment of fees “by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such

21

person . . . possesses [and] that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28

22

U.S.C. § 1915(a).

23

The Court reviewed Plaintiff’s application and found the information provided was insufficient

24

to determine whether Plaintiff satisfies the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff

25

was ordered to file an amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis no later than December 7, 2015.

26

(Doc. 4 at 2) In addition, the Court cautioned Plaintiff that “failure to comply with this order may

27

result in denial of his application to proceed in forma pauperis.” (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to

28

respond to or otherwise comply with the Court’s order.
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

requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)

10

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

11

Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

12

Accordingly, within 14 days, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause in writing why sanctions

13

should—up to and including dismissal of the action—not be imposed for his failure to comply with the

14

Court’s order. Alternatively, he may file an amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the

15

filing fee within 14 days.

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 17, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2