Castro v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 9

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/16/2017: Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this case should be dismissed for a failure to comply with this Court's order. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a written response to this Order to Show Cause WITHIN 14 (fourteen) days of the date of this Order. In the alternative, Plaintiff may file the amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file a timely response to this order will result in dismissal of this action. (Valdez, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

RICHARD CASTRO,

16-cv-1390 LJO GSA

14
Plaintiff,

15
16
17
18
19

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

20
21

On September 20, 2016, pro se Plaintiff Richard Castro (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint

22

requesting a review of the Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits. (Doc. 1). After

23

screening Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court dismissed the case with leave to file an amended

24

complaint. Plaintiff was advised that any amended complaint shall be filed no later than October

25

30, 2016. (Doc. 4, pgs. 3-4). On October 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a request for an extension of

26

time to file the amended complaint. (Doc. 5). The Court granted Plaintiff’s request and ordered

27
28

that any amended complaint be filed no later than December 2, 2016. (Doc. 6). To date, no
1

1
2
3
4

amended complaint has been filed.
Rule 110 of this Court’s Local Rules provides that the “failure of counsel or of a party to
comply … 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.” This Court has the inherent power to

5
6

manage its docket. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may

7

dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey

8

a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54

9

(9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

10
11

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of
complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to

12
13
14
15
16

comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Henderson v.
Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to
comply with local rules).
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a

17

court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the

18

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket;

19
(3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on
20
21
22

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Ferdik,
963 F.2d at 1260-61; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24.

23

ORDER

24

Given the above, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this case should be dismissed for

25
26

a failure to comply with this Court’s order. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a written response to
this Order to Show Cause WITHIN 14 (fourteen) days of the date of this Order. In the

27
alternative, Plaintiff may file the amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file a
28

2

1

timely response to this order will result in dismissal of this action.

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated:

February 16, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3