(SS)Gonzales v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/19/2021. Show Cause Response due within 14 days. (Hall, S)

Case 1:20-cv-00517-JLT Document 19 Filed 07/19/21 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSEPH RICHARD GONZALES,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW SAUL,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-00517 JLT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S
ORDER

On April 26, 2021, Joseph Pena, counsel for plaintiff Joseph Richard Gonzales, filed a notice

18

of “Suggestion of Death” upon the record. (Doc. 15.) Mr. Pena indicated that on April 7, 2021, he

19

“was notified by Social Security that the Plaintiff had passed away” on August 23, 2020. (Id. at 1.)

20

Pursuant to Rule 25(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court ordered that “[a]ny

21

motion to substitute a party as plaintiff shall be filed no later than July 15, 2021.” (Doc. 16 at 2,

22

emphasis omitted.) To date, no motion for substitution has been filed.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute
1

Case 1:20-cv-00517-JLT Document 19 Filed 07/19/21 Page 2 of 2

1

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

2

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

3

requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)

4

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

5

Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

6

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s counsel is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the

7

date of service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for the failure comply with the

8

Court’s order and failure to prosecute, or in the alternative, to file a motion for substitution.

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 19, 2021

_ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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