(SS) Urrabazo 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 DAVID MALDONADO URRABAZO, SR., ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-248 - JLT ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER TO DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE ) WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 13 v. ) ) FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) COURT’S ORDER ) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 17 David Maldonado Urrabazo, Jr., seeks judicial review of a decision to denying his application 18 for Social Security benefits. (Doc. 1) On February 21, 2019, the Court issued its Scheduling Order, 19 setting forth the applicable deadlines. (Doc. 3) 20 Plaintiff filed his opening brief on November 8, 2019. (Doc. 13) Pursuant to the terms of the 21 Scheduling Order, within thirty days of the filing of the opening brief, the Commissioner was to file a 22 response. (Doc. 3 at 2) To date, the Commissioner has not filed a responsive brief, and the 23 Commissioner 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 inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions. 28 Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court impose 1 sanctions, including terminating sanctions, for a party’s failure to obey a court order or failure to 2 comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 3 (imposing sanctions terminating for failure to comply with an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 4 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing terminating sanctions for failure to comply with a court 5 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (sanctions for failure to prosecute 6 and to comply with local rules). 7 Accordingly, the Commissioner is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date 8 of service of this order why the sanctions should not be imposed for failure to follow the Court’s order 9 or to file response to Plaintiff’s opening brief. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: December 12, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28