Whipple v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 15

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/14/2017. 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

DOROTHY WHIPPLE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL1,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

15
Defendant.
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1254 - JLT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS
SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED PLAINTIFF’S
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S
ORDER

17

Dorothy Whipple initiated this action by filing a complaint on August 24, 2016, seeking judicial

18

review of the decision to denying her application for Social Security benefits. (Doc. 1) On August 30,

19

2016, the Court entered its Scheduling Order, setting forth the deadlines governing the briefing in this

20

action. (Doc. 6)

21

Defendant filed the certified administrative record in the matter on January 23, 2017. (Doc. 12)

22

Pursuant to the terms of the Scheduling Order, within thirty days of the filing of the administrative

23

record, Plaintiff was to serve “a letter brief outlining the reasons why…she contends that a remand is

24

warranted,” and file “proof of service reflecting that the letter brief was served.” (Doc. 6 at 2) To date,

25

Plaintiff has not filed the proof of service and has not requested an extension of time to comply with the

26

Court’s order.

27
28

1

Nancy A. Berryhill is now the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. The Court substitutes Nancy A. Berryhill
for her predecessor, Carolyn W. Colvin pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

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 why the sanctions

13

should not be imposed for her failure to follow the Court’s Order or within the same deadline SHALL

14

serve her confidential letter brief and file proof of service with the Court.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 14, 2017

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2