Saechao v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 20

Order to Show Cause why the action should not be dismissed for Plaintiffs failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the courts order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/16/2017. Show Cause Response due by 11/2/2017. (Rosales, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 SARN SING SAECHAO, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) ) Defendant. ) ) Case No.: 1:16-cv-1716 - JLT ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER 16 17 On October 2, 2017, the Court granted the request of Plaintiff’s counsel to withdraw from her 18 representation, based upon the assertion that “[t]he attorney-client relationship has completely failed” 19 and Plaintiff was no longer communicating with his attorney. (Doc. 19) Plaintiff was ordered to 20 notify the Court “whether he intends to prosecute this action,” and “notify the Court whether he 21 intends to represent himself in this matter” no later than October 13, 2017. (Id. at 3) The Court 22 warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with its order “may result in dismissal of this action pursuant to 23 Local Rule 110.” (Id., emphasis omitted) To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s 24 order and has not taken any action indicating his desire to prosecute the matter. 25 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 26 party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 27 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have 28 inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions 1 1 including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 2 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute 3 an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. 4 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order); 5 Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with 6 a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 7 prosecute and to comply with local rules). 8 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of 9 service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or to comply with 10 the Court’s Order or, in the alternative, to file written notification of his intent to prosecute this action. 11 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 16, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?