Elliott v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 14

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a written response to this order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failu re to prosecute within seven (7) days of the date of service of this order. Failure to comply with this order to show cause shall result in this action being dismissed for failure to prosecute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/29/2017. (Hernandez, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL ANDREW ELLIOTT,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,

Case No. 1:16-cv-01763-SAB
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT
BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE
SEVEN DAY DEADLINE

15
Defendant.
16
17
18

On November 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed the present action in this court seeking review of

19 the Commissioner’s denial of an application for benefits.

On November 22, 2016, the Court

20 issued a scheduling order. (ECF No. 4). The scheduling order states that within 95 days from
21 the filing of the administrative record, Plaintiff shall file an opening brief. Defendant lodged the
22 Social Security administrative record on April 18, 2017. (ECF No. 9.) The parties stipulated for
23 an extension of time for Plaintiff to serve the letter brief on the Commissioner. (ECF Nos. 10,
24 11.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s opening brief was due thirty days after Defendant’s service of the
25 response to Plaintiff’s opening brief. (ECF No. 5 at 3.) Defendant’s serve the responsive brief
26 on July 24, 2017. (ECF No. 13.) More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed
27 his opening brief.
28

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

1

1 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all
2 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to
3 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate,
4 including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir.
5 2000).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a written response to

6

7 this order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute within
8 seven (7) days of the date of service of this order. Failure to comply with this order to show
9 cause shall result in this action being dismissed for failure to prosecute.
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dated:

August 29, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

2