(SS) Mitzel v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
13
ORDER to PLAINTIFF to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Comply with the Court's Order and Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 9/7/2021. (Hall, S)
Case 1:20-cv-01757-JLT Document 13 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LONNIE LEO MITZELL,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:20-cv-1757 JLT
ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THE COURT’S ORDER AND FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE
16
17
Lonnie Leo Mitzell initiated this action by filing a complaint on December 11, 2021, seeking
18
judicial review of the decision to deny an application for Social Security benefits. (Doc. 1.) On July 19,
19
2021, the Commissioner filed the administrative record. (Doc. 10.) On June 15, 2021, the Court issued
20
an amended Scheduling Order, setting forth briefing deadlines for the action. (Doc. 11.)
21
Pursuant to the terms of the Scheduling Order, Plaintiff was to file a motion for summary
22
judgment within forty-five days of the date of service of the Court’s order. (Doc. 11 at 1.) Thus,
23
Plaintiff was to serve an opening brief no later than September 3, 2021. However, Plaintiff has not
24
filed an opening brief, and has not requested an extension of time to comply with the deadline. The
25
Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a party to
26
comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all
27
sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent
28
power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including
1
Case 1:20-cv-01757-JLT Document 13 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 2
1
dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.
2
1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action
3
or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963
4
F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order); Malone v. U.S.
5
Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order);
6
Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to
7
comply with local rules).
8
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of service
9
of this Order why terminating sanctions should not be imposed for failure to follow the Court’s Order
10
and failure to prosecute the action or, in the alternative, file the opening brief.
11
12
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 7, 2021
_ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15
16
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?