Ruiz v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 6

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/13/17. Show Cause Response due by 1/27/2017. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HEATHER ANNETTE RUIZ, 16-cv-1789 GSA 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE CAROLYN COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. 18 19 On November 23, 2016, Plaintiff Heather Annette Ruiz (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint 20 requesting a review of the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance and supplemental 21 security income benefits. (Doc. 1). At that time, Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Proceed In 22 Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. 2). After reviewing the application, the Court issued an order on 23 December 2, 2016, requiring that Plaintiff file an amended IFP application because information 24 on the form was not complete. (Doc. 3). On December 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a request for an 25 extension of time to file the amended application. (Doc. 4). The Court granted the request and 26 27 28 ordered that Plaintiff file an amended IFP application no later than December 20, 2016. (Doc. 5). To date, no amended IFP application has been filed as ordered. 1 1 Given the above, Plaintiff has violated the order of this court. Accordingly, the Court 2 orders that Plaintiff show cause why this case should not be dismissed for her failure to comply 3 with this Court’s orders, and for her failure to prosecute this case. 4 Rule 110 of this Court’s Local Rules provides that the “failure of counsel or of a party to 5 6 comply … with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 7 sanctions … within the inherent power of the Court.” This Court has the inherent power to 8 manage its docket. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may 9 dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey 10 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 11 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 12 13 14 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 15 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Henderson v. 16 Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to 17 comply with local rules). 18 19 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the 20 21 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 22 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 23 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Ferdik, 24 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24. 25 26 In light of the above, no later than January 27, 2017, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a written response to this Order to Show Cause, explaining why she has not filed an amended IFP 27 application as ordered, or otherwise notified the Court of the status of the application. In the 28 2 1 2 3 alternative Plaintiff can file the $400.00 filing fee by January 27, 2017. Failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause within the time specified may result in dismissal of this action. 4 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 13, 2017 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?