(SS) Badillo 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 CECILIO BADILLO, Case No. 1:20-cv-00393-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS 13 v. SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY AND THIS ACTION SHOULD 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE 15 Defendant. (ECF No. 7) 16 FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 17 18 On March 16, 2020, Cecilio Badillo (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in this action seeking 19 review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying disability benefits. 20 (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee in this action and instead filed an application to 21 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 2.) On March 24, 22 2020, the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s application and found that it did not provide sufficient 23 information for the Court to determine if he was entitled to proceed in this action without 24 prepayment of fees and he was ordered to file a long form application to proceed without 25 prepayment of fees. (ECF No. 3.) On April 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed a long form application, 26 however, the information submitted in the April 10, 2020 application was inconsistent with that 27 contained in the March 16, 2020 application. (ECF Nos. 2, 4.) On April 13, 2020, based on the UVM IY DOMAIN OPI ee AY OV 1 | inconsistent information contained in the application and the significant expenses listed, Plaintiff 2 | was ordered to either pay the filing fee or file a long form application to proceed in forma 3 | pauperis within twenty days of entry of the order. (id.) On May 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed another 4 | long form application. (ECF No. 6.) Upon review of the application, the Court found that 5 | Plaintiff's three applications are inconsistent with one another and that his expenses indicate that 6 | he is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff was ordered 7 | to complete and file another Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or 8 | Costs (Long Form) — AO 239, and provide supporting documentation demonstrating expenses 9 | and income from January 1, 2020, the date indicated on the most recent IFP application that 10 | Plaintiff's spouse’s most recent job position began (ECF No. 6 at 2) through the date of the order 11 | within twenty days or pay the filing fee in full. (ECF No. 7.) More than twenty days have 12 | passed and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the May 14, 2020 order. 13 Local Rule 110 provides that “[flailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 14 | Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 15 | sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 16 | control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 17 | including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 18 | 2000). 19 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE within 20 | fourteen (14) days of the date of entry of this order why sanctions should not issue for the 21 | failure to comply with the May 14, 2020 order and for failure to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff is 22 | forewarned that the failure to show cause may result in the imposition of sanctions, 23 | including the dismissal of this action for failure to obey a court order. 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 26 | Dated: _ June 11, 2020 " 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28