Gomez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 15

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, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/16/2018. Show Cause Response due within 14 days. (Hall, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUANA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:17-cv-01035 - 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 Juana Del Carmen Gomez initiated this action by filing a complaint on August 2, 2017, seeking 18 judicial review of a decision to denying her application for Social Security benefits. (Doc. 1) On 19 August 10, 2017, the Court issued its Scheduling Order, setting forth the applicable deadlines. (Doc. 5) 20 Defendant filed the certified administrative record in the matter on March 7, 2018. (Doc. 13) 21 Pursuant to the terms of the Scheduling Order, within thirty days of the filing of the administrative 22 record, Plaintiff was to serve “a letter brief outlining the reasons why…[] she contends that a remand is 23 warranted,” and file “proof of service reflecting that the letter brief was served.” (Doc. 5 at 2) Thus, 24 Plaintiff was to serve a confidential letter brief no later than April 6, 2018. To date, no proof of service 25 has been filed, and Plaintiff has not requested an extension of time to comply with the Court’s order. 26 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 27 party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 28 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have 1 1 inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions 2 including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 3 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute 4 an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. 5 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order); 6 Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with 7 a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 8 prosecute and to comply with local rules). 9 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of service 10 of this Order why the sanctions should not be imposed for failure to follow the Court’s Order and 11 failure to prosecute the action or, in the alternative, serve a confidential letter brief and file proof of 12 service with the Court. 13 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 16, 2018 /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?