Finley v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 14

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for Defendant's 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

WILLIAM JOSEPH FINLEY,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
CAROLYN COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

15
Defendant.
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-0272 - JLT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS
SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR
DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THE COURT’S ORDER

William Finley initiated this action by filing a complaint on February 26, 2016, seeking judicial

18

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

19

26, 2016, the Court entered its Scheduling Order, setting forth the applicable deadlines. (Doc. 3)

20

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, Plaintiff served his confidential letter brief upon Defendant and filed

21

a proof of service on August 25, 2016. (Doc. 13)

22

Within thirty-five days of the date of service of Plaintiff’s confidential letter brief, Defendant

23

was to serve a response upon Plaintiff. (Doc. 3 at 2) In addition, Defendant was ordered to file “[a]

24

separate proof of service reflecting that the response was served.” (Id.) Accordingly, Defendant was

25

to serve Plaintiff a response to the letter brief and file proof of service no later than September 29,

26

2016. (See id.) To date, no proof of service has been filed, and Defendant has not requested an

27

extension of time to comply with the Court’s order.

28

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

prosecute and to comply with local rules).

11

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

12

service of this order why the action sanctions should not be imposed for failure to follow the Court’s

13

order, or to serve a response to Plaintiff’s confidential letter brief and file proof of service with the

14

Court.

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