Francesconi 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 8/31/2018. 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

VALERIE ANN FRANCESCONI,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

15
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-01391 - 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

16
17

Valerie Francesconi initiated this action by filing a complaint on August 13, 2017, seeking

18

judicial review of the decision to denying an application for Social Security benefits. (Doc. 1) On

19

December 11, 2017, the Court issued its Scheduling Order, setting forth the applicable deadlines. (Doc.

20

6) Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the parties exchanged confidential letter briefs, with Defendant

21

serving the Commissioner’s response on June 27, 2018. (Doc. 14)

22

In the Scheduling Order, the Court required Plaintiff to file an opening brief addressing “each

23

claimed error” by the administrative law judge within thirty days of the date of service of the

24

Commissioner’s response. (See Doc. 6 at 2, explaining the applicable briefing deadlines) Therefore,

25

Plaintiff’s opening brief was due August 27, 2018. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opening brief or

26

requested an extension of time.

27
28

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a
party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any
1

1

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have

2

inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions

3

including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

4

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute

5

an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v.

6

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order);

7

Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with

8

a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to

9

prosecute and to comply with local rules).

10

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of service

11

of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and to follow the Court’s

12

order or to file an opening brief.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 31, 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2