(SS) Yarnell v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LISA JANICE YARNELL, ) Case No.: 1:18-cv-1483 - JLT ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER TO DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE ) WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 13 v. ) FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE ) COURT’S ORDER 14 ANDREW M. SAUL1, ) Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ) 15 ) Defendant. ) 16 ) 17 Lisa Yarnell seeks judicial review of a decision to denying her application for Social Security 18 benefits. (Doc. 1) On October 26, 2018, the Court issued its Scheduling Order, setting forth the 19 applicable deadlines. (Doc. 3-1) 20 Plaintiff filed her opening brief in this action on July 22, 2019. (Doc. 14) Pursuant to the terms 21 of the Scheduling Order, within thirty days of the date of service of the opening brief, the 22 Commissioner was to file his brief in response. (Doc. 3-1 at 2) However, the Commissioner failed to 23 file a responsive brief, and did not request an extension of time to comply with the Court’s order. 24 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 25 party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 26 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have 27 28 1 This action was originally brought against Nancy A. Berryhill in her capacity as then-Acting Commissioner. 1 inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions. 2 Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may 3 impose sanctions, including terminating sanctions, for a party’s failure to obey a court order or failure 4 to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 5 (imposing sanctions terminating for failure to comply with an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 6 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing terminating sanctions for failure to comply with a court 7 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (sanctions for failure to prosecute 8 and to comply with local rules). 9 Accordingly, the Commissioner is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date 10 of service of this Order why the sanctions should not be imposed for failure to follow the Court’s order 11 or to file a response to Plaintiff’s opening brief. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: August 22, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28