Harrison Campbell v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 7

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER. Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed for Plaintiffs failure to comply wi th the Courts April 11, 2017 and May 1, 2017 orders. Plaintiff shall file a written response to this order to show cause no later than May 19, 2017. Plaintiff is forewarned that failure to respond to this order to show cause will result in the dismissal of this action. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 5/11/2017. (Hernandez, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

COURTNEY ERIN HARRISON
CAMPBELL,

Case No. 1:17-cv-00500-SAB
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDER

12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY.

Response due: May 19, 2017

15
Defendant.
16
17

Plaintiff Courtney Erin Harrison Campbell (“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint in this action

18 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division, on
19 April 5, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee in this action and instead filed an
20 application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 on April 5, 2017. (ECF
21 No. 2.) On April 11, 2017, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either pay the $400 filing fee for this
22 action or complete and file an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees
23 or Costs (Long Form) – AO 239 within twenty days. (ECF No. 4.) On May 1, 2017, Plaintiff
24 filed a motion to extend the time to file an amended application to proceed in forma pauperis to
25 May 8, 2017, which the Court granted. (ECF Nos. 5, 6.) To date, Plaintiff has not paid the $400
26 filing fee or filed an amended application to proceed in forma pauperis.
27

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

28 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all

1

1 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to
2 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate,
3 including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir.
4 2000).
Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why this action should

5

6 not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s April 11, 2017 and May 1,
7 2017 orders. Plaintiff shall file a written response to this order to show cause no later than May
8 19, 2017. Plaintiff is forewarned that failure to respond to this order to show cause will result in
9 the dismissal of this action.
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dated:

May 11, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

2