Gallegos v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
16
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
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
ANDREW M. GALLEGOS,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, )
)
Defendant.
)
)
Case No.: 1:17-cv-0227 - 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
Andrew Gallegos initiated this action by filing a complaint on February 25, 2017, seeking
18
judicial review of the decision to denying an application for Social Security benefits. (Doc. 1) On
19
February 21, 2017, the Court entered its Scheduling Order, setting forth the applicable deadlines for
20
the action. (Doc. 6-1) Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the parties exchanged confidential letter
21
briefs, with Defendant serving the Commissioner’s response on September 13, 2017. (Doc. 15)
22
In the Scheduling Order, Plaintiff was ordered to file an opening brief addressing “each claimed
23
error” by the administrative law judge within thirty days of the date of service of the Commissioner’s
24
response. (See Doc. 6-1 at 2 and 4, explaining the applicable briefing deadlines) Thus, Plaintiff was to
25
file his opening brief in this action no later than October 13, 2017. (See id.) However, Plaintiff failed
26
to file an opening brief, and has not requested an extension of time.
27
28
The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a
party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any
1
1
and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have
2
inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions
3
including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831
4
(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute
5
an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v.
6
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order);
7
Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with
8
a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to
9
prosecute and to comply with local rules).
10
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of service
11
of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or to follow the Court’s
12
Order or, in the alternative, to file an opening brief.
13
14
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
October 16, 2017
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?