Cook v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 13

ORDER REQUIRING Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE Why This Action Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to Comply With Court Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 1/26/17. Show Cause Response Due Within Seven Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

TERREN DANAE COOK,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,

Case No. 1:16-cv-00631-SAB
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
COURT ORDER
SEVEN DAY DEADLINE

16
Defendant.
17
18
19

On May 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed the present action in this court seeking review of the

20

Commissioner’s denial of an application for benefits.

On May 6, 2016, the Court issued a

21

scheduling order. (ECF No. 6). The scheduling order states that within 95 days from the filing of

22

the administrative record, Plaintiff shall file an opening brief. Defendant lodged the Social

23

Security administrative record on October 11, 2016. (ECF No. 11.) More than 95 days have

24

passed and Plaintiff has not filed an opening brief nor sought an extension of time to do so.

25

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules

26

or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all

27

sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to

28

control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate,
1

1

including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir.

2

2000).

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a written response to this

4

order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the

5

scheduling order within seven (7) days of the date of service of this order. Failure to comply with

6

this order to show cause shall result in this action being dismissed for failure to prosecute.

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 26, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2