(SS) Luna-Michael v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
9
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
KRISTI ANN LUNA-MICHAEL,
Plaintiff,
11
12
13
14
Case No. 1:21-cv-01083-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.
(ECF No. 8)
DEADLINE: AUGUST 8, 2022
15
16
17
On July 12, 2021, Plaintiff Kristi Ann Luna-Michael filed this action seeking judicial
18
review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying
19
an application for disability benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1.) On
20
April 1, 2022, the Court issued an order advising the parties of the lifting of the stay of action
21
pursuant to General Order Number 644, which rescinded the Court’s temporary stay in Social
22
Security Matters effective April 1, 2022, and provided an amended scheduling order. (ECF No.
23
8.) Pursuant to the amended scheduling order, Defendant was directed to electronically file the
24
administrative record within 120 days of service of the Court’s order. (Id. at 2.) Thus, the
25
deadline to file the administrative record was August 1, 2022. However, an independent
26
review of the docket reveals that, as of August 1, 2022, neither the administrative record, nor
27
other filings, have been submitted.
28
Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these
1
1
Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all
2
sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to
3
control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate,
4
including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir.
5
2000).
6
Defendant’s failure to timely lodge the administrative record constitutes a failure to
7
comply with the Court’s order. Accordingly, Defendant will be directed to show cause why
8
sanctions should not issue for failure to lodge the administrative record in compliance with the
9
Court’s April 1, 2022 order (ECF No. 8).
10
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than August 8, 2022,
11
Defendant shall show cause in writing why sanctions should not issue for the failure to comply
12
with the Court’s orders and timely lodge the administrative record in this matter. Failure to
13
comply with this order will result in the imposition of sanctions.
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16 Dated:
August 2, 2022
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?