(SS) Carreon v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HERMINIA O. CARREON, No. 1:19-cv-00759-GSA 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR v. PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE 14 TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER 15 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Paragraph 3 of the Scheduling Order provides that within thirty (30) days after service of 19 20 the administrative record Plaintiff shall serve Defendant with a confidential letter brief and shall 21 file with the Court a separate proof of service of the confidential letter brief. Doc. 4 at 2, ¶ 3. 22 Although the administrative record in this case was filed with the Court on October 28, 2019 (AR 23 9), Plaintiff has not filed proof that a confidential letter brief was served on Defendant within 24 thirty days thereafter. On December 30, 2019, the Court directed Plaintiff to file such proof of 25 service within five days. Doc. 10. Plaintiff did not timely file proof of service or any other 26 document with the Court. 27 28 /// 1 Rule 110 of this Court’s Local Rules provides that the “failure of counsel or of a party to 2 comply … with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 3 sanctions … within the inherent power of the Court.” This Court has the inherent power to 4 manage its docket. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may 5 dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey 6 7 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 8 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 9 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 10 complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to 11 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Henderson v. 12 Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to 13 comply with local rules). 14 15 Given the above, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file a written response to this Order to 16 Show Cause WITHIN fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order explaining why she has not filed 17 proof of service of a confidential letter brief in accordance with the provisions of the Scheduling 18 Order (Doc. 4). In the alternative, Plaintiff may file the proof of service within fifteen (15) days 19 of the date of this order. 20 Failure of Plaintiff to respond to this Order to Show Cause within the time specified 21 may result in dismissal of the case. 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: January 13, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28