(SS) Juarez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO LODGE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/02/2022. (Gonzales, V)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

MARIA JUAREZ,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

Case No. 1:21-cv-00680-JLT-SAB
ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS
SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR
FAILURE TO LODGE ADMINISTRATIVE
RECORD

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

DEADLINE: AUGUST 8, 2022

15
16

On April 22, 2021, Plaintiff Maria Juarez filed this action seeking judicial review of a

17

final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying an

18

application for disability benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1.) On April

19

1, 2022, the Court issued an order advising the parties of the lifting of the stay of action

20

pursuant to General Order Number 644, which rescinded the Court’s temporary stay in Social

21

Security Matters effective April 1, 2022, and provided an amended scheduling order. (ECF No.

22

16.) Pursuant to the amended scheduling order, Defendant was directed to electronically file

23

the administrative record within 120 days of service of the Court’s order. (Id. at 2.) Thus, the

24

deadline to file the administrative record was August 1, 2022. However, an independent

25

review of the docket reveals that, as of August 1, 2022, neither the administrative record, nor

26

other filings, have been submitted.

27

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

28

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

1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

2000).

5

Defendant’s failure to timely lodge the administrative record constitutes a failure to

6

comply with the Court’s order. Accordingly, Defendant will be directed to show cause why

7

sanctions should not issue for failure to lodge the administrative record in compliance with the

8

Court’s April 1, 2022 order (ECF No. 16).

9

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than August 8, 2022,

10

Defendant shall show cause in writing why sanctions should not issue for the failure to comply

11

with the Court’s orders and timely file the administrative record in this matter. Failure to

12

comply with this order will result in the imposition of sanctions.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15 Dated:

August 2, 2022
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

2