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)
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?