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)

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