(SS) Sutter 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 MICHAEL SUTTER, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-1044 - JLT ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE ) WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. ) ) DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) THE COURT’S ORDER AND FAILURE TO ) PROSECUTE 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 17 Michael Sutter initiated this action by filing a complaint on July 29, 2019, seeking judicial 18 review of the decision to deny an application for Social Security benefits. (Doc. 1) On August 2, 2019, 19 the Court issued its Scheduling Order, setting forth the deadlines governing the action. (Doc. 6) 20 The Commissioner of Social Security filed the certified administrative record in the matter on 21 April 1, 2020. (Doc. 10) Pursuant to the terms of the Scheduling Order, the parties exchanged 22 confidential letter briefs, with the Commissioner serving a response on June 3, 2020. (Doc. 14) Within 23 thirty days, if the parties did not agree on a voluntary remand Plaintiff was to serve “file and serve an 24 opening brief with the court.” (Doc. 6 at 2) Thus, Plaintiff was to serve a confidential letter brief no 25 later than July 3, 2020. However, Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service, and she did not request an 26 extension of time to comply with the deadline. 27 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 28 party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 1 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have 2 inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions 3 including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 4 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute 5 an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. 6 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order); 7 Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with 8 a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 9 prosecute and to comply with local rules). 10 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of service 11 of this Order why terminating sanctions should not be imposed for failure to follow the Court’s Order 12 and failure to prosecute the action or, in the alternative, file the opening brief. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: July 7, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28