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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SARINA ELAINE CLARK, No. 1:19-cv-01587-GSA 11 Plaintiff, 12 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY v. CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 13 FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social WITH COURT ORDER Security, 15 Defendant. 16 Doc. 11 17 18 Paragraph 3 of the Scheduling Order (Doc. 5) provides that within thirty (30) days after 19 service of the administrative record Plaintiff shall serve Defendant with a confidential letter brief 20 and shall file with the Court a separate proof of service of the confidential letter brief. Although 21 the administrative record in this case was filed with the Court on March 25, 2020 (Doc. 10), 22 Plaintiff has not filed proof that a confidential letter brief was served on Defendant within thirty 23 24 days thereafter. On May 11, 2020, the Court directed Plaintiff to file such proof of service within 25 ten days. Doc. 11. Plaintiff did not timely file a proof of service or any other document with the 26 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 TEN (10) 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. 5). In the alternative, Plaintiff may file the proof of service of the Confidential Letter 19 Brief within TEN (10) DAYS 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: May 27, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28