Reyes v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 13

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a written response to this order to show cause why this action should not be d ismissed for failure to prosecute within seven (7) days of the date of service of this order. Failure to comply with this order to show cause shall result in this action being dismissed for failure to prosecute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 4/9/2018. (Hernandez, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LEON REYES,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

Case No. 1:17-cv-01065-SAB

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE
TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER AND
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
SEVEN DAY DEADLINE

15
Defendant.
16
17
18

On August 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed the present action in this court seeking review of the

19

Commissioner’s denial of an application for benefits. On August 14, 2017, the Court issued a

20

scheduling order. (ECF No. 5.) The scheduling order states that if Defendant does not agree to a

21

remand, then Plaintiff shall file an opening brief within 30 days of the date of service of

22

Defendant’s confidential letter brief. Defendant served her confidential letter brief on March 2,

23

2018. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff’s opening brief was due on April 2, 2018. However, Plaintiff did

24

not file an opening brief in compliance with the August 14, 2017 scheduling order.

25

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

26

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

27

sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to

28

control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate,
1

1

including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir.

2

2000).

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a written response to

4

this order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute within

5

seven (7) days of the date of service of this order. Failure to comply with this order to show

6

cause shall result in this action being dismissed for failure to prosecute.

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 9, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2