(SS) Guzman v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

ORDER to DEFENDANT to SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for Failure to Comply with the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/16/2021. Show Cause Response due within 14 days. (Hall, S)

Case 1:20-cv-00514-JLT Document 21 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

MONICA TABAREZ GUZMAN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, )
)
Defendant.
)
)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-0514 - JLT
ORDER TO DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED
FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
COURT’S ORDER

16
17

Monica Tabarez Guzman seeks judicial review of a decision to denying her application for

18

Social Security benefits. (Doc. 1) On April 14, 2020, the Court issued its Scheduling Order, setting

19

forth the applicable deadlines. (Doc. 5)

20

After the parties exchanged confidential letter briefs, Plaintiff filed her opening brief on January

21

13, 2021. (Doc. 20) Pursuant to the terms of the Scheduling Order, within thirty days of the date of

22

service of the opening brief brief, the Commissioner was to file a responsive brief. (Doc. 5 at 2) To

23

date, the Commissioner has not filed a proof of service indicating a response was served upon Plaintiff.

24

In addition, the Commissioner did not request an extension of time to comply with the Court’s order.

25

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a

26

party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any

27

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

28

inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions.
1

Case 1:20-cv-00514-JLT Document 21 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 2

1

Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may

2

impose sanctions, including terminating sanctions, for a party’s failure to obey a court order or failure

3

to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)

4

(imposing sanctions terminating for failure to comply with an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

5

833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing terminating sanctions for failure to comply with a court

6

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

7

and to comply with local rules). Accordingly, within 14 days, the Commissioner SHALL show cause

8

why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to follow the Court’s order. Alternatively, within 14

9

days, the Commissioner may file a response to Plaintiff’s opening brief.

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 16, 2021

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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