Cisneros De Rios v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why this Case should not be Dismissed for Failure to Follow a Court Order; Show Cause Response due by 12/15/2017 signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/29/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

OLIVIA REFUGIO CISNEROS DE RIOS,

16-cv-1775 GSA

8
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12
13

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

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILULRE TO FOLLOW A COURT
ORDER

Defendant.

14
15
16
17

On July 21, 2017, the Court issued an order extending the time to August 18, 2017, for
Plaintiff to file her Opening brief. (Doc. 14). On August 18, 2017, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a
Motion to Withdraw as Attorney (Doc. 15), advising the Court that she has been unable to reach

18
Plaintiff since May 15, 2017, despite several efforts to contact her. On August 23, 2017, this
19
20

Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to counsel’s motion no later than September 22, 2017. (Doc.

21

16). Plaintiff never filed a response to the motion as ordered. The Motion to Withdraw as

22

Counsel was granted on October 5, 2017. (Doc. 17). In that decision, Plaintiff was advised that

23

she was now representing herself pro se, and that she was required to follow all Court rules and

24
25

applicable laws, including filing an Opening Brief. She was ordered to file her Opening Brief no
later than November 24, 2017. (Doc. 17, pg. 3, lines 8-14). To date, Plaintiff has not filed an

26
27
28

Opening Brief pursuant to this Court’s order.
Rule 110 of this Court’s Local Rules provides that the “failure of counsel or of a party to
1

1

comply … 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.” This Court has the inherent power to

3
4

manage its docket. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may
dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey

5
6

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

7

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

8

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of

9

complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to

10
11

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

12
13

comply with local rules).
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a

14
15

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

16

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

17

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

18
19

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.

20
21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27
///
28

2

1
2
3

ORDER
Given the above, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed
for a failure to comply with this Court’s order. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a written response

4
to this Order to Show Cause no later than December 15, 2017. In the alternative, Plaintiff may
5
6

file the Opening Brief by that same date. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file a timely response

7

to this order will result in dismissal of this action. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to serve this

8

OSC on Plaintiff as the address listed on the docket.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
Dated:
12

November 29, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

3