(SS)Caudel 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 LAQUITTA ANN CAUDEL, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-1255-JLT ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PLAINTIFF’S ) MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 v. ) SHOULD NOT BE DENIED FOR FAILURE TO ) COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER TO FILE 14 ANDREW SAUL, ) AN AMENDED APPLICATION Commissioner of Social Security, ) 15 ) Defendant. ) 16 ) 17 Laquitta Ann Caudel seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in this action for judicial review of 18 the administrative decision denying her application for Social Security benefits. The Court found the 19 information provided by Plaintiff in her motion to proceed in forma pauperis was insufficient to 20 determine whether Plaintiff satisfies the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (Doc. 3) Therefore, the 21 Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended application, including additional information regarding her 22 household expenses. (Id. at 2) The Court advised Plaintiff that “failure to comply with this order may 23 result in denial of her application to proceed in forma pauperis.” (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed 24 an amended application. 25 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 26 party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 27 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have 28 inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions 1 including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 2 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute 3 an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. 4 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 5 requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 6 (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th 7 Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 8 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of 9 service of this order why her application to proceed in forma pauperis should not be denied or to pay 10 the filing fee in this action. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: October 1, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28