Estrada v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 8

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE Why this Action should not be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 6/7/2016. (Show Cause Response due by 6/24/2016.)(Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SYLVIA ESTRADA,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

Case No. 1:16-cv-00497-SAB

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT
BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE
Response due June 24, 2016

15
Defendant.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff Sylvia Estrada (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, seeks judicial review of a final
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner” or “Defendant”) denying her
application for disability benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act. On May 4, 2016, the
summons in this action issued and the scheduling order and an order for pro se litigants were
issued. Both the scheduling order and the informational order informed Plaintiff that she was
required to serve the complaint within 20 days and file a return of service with this court. (ECF
No. 6 at ¶ 1; ECF No. 7 at p. 1-2.) To date, no return of service has been filed with the Court and
there is no indication that Plaintiff has served the summons or complaint.
Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these
Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all
sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to

28

1

1 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate,
2 including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir.
3 2000).
Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why this action should

4

5 not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s scheduling order and
6 Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action. Plaintiff shall file a written response to this order to
7 show cause no later than June 24, 2016. Plaintiff is forewarned that failure to respond to this
8 order to show cause will result in the dismissal of this action.
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 Dated:

June 7, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2