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)

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