Veltkamp v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 7

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why This Case Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Follow a Court Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/5/17: Show Cause Response due by 7/28/2017. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KATHLENE FREIDA VELTCAMP, 17-cv-580 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 FAILURE TO FOLLOW A COURT ORDER Defendant. 14 15 16 17 On April 26, 2017, pro se Plaintiff Kathleen Veltcamp (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint requesting a review of the Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits. (Doc. 1). After screening Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court dismissed the case with leave to file an amended 18 complaint. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff was advised that any amended complaint shall be filed no later than 19 20 21 22 June 16, 2017, and that failure to timely file an amended complaint would result in dismissal of this action. (Doc. 5, pg. 5). Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint as ordered. Rule 110 of this Court’s Local Rules provides that the “failure of counsel or of a party to 23 comply … with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 24 sanctions … within the inherent power of the Court.” This Court has the inherent power to 25 manage its docket. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may 26 27 28 dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 1 1 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 2 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 3 complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to 4 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Henderson v. 5 6 7 8 Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a 9 court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the 10 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 11 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 12 13 14 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. ORDER 15 16 Given the above, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed 17 for a failure to comply with this Court’s order. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a written response to 18 19 this Order to Show Cause no later than July 28, 2017. In the alternative, Plaintiff may file the amended complaint by that same date. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file a timely response to 20 21 this order will result in dismissal of this action. 22 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 5, 2017 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?