(SS) Schillaci v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 APRIL SCHILLACI, Case No. 1:20-cv-00628-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION 13 v. SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY AND FAILURE TO 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, PROSECUTE 15 Defendant. FIVE DAY DEADLINE 16 17 Plaintiff April Schillaci (“Plaintiff”) filed this action seeking judicial review of a final 18 decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner” or “Defendant”) denying an 19 application for disability benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act. On May 5, 2020, the 20 scheduling order was filed in this matter. On June 3, 2020, an order issued due to Plaintiff’s 21 failure to file a certificate of service in compliance with the May 5, 2020 scheduling order. On 22 June 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a certificate of service. After service of the complaint, the matter 23 was stayed by General Order 615 until the administrative record was filed on November 6, 2020. 24 The May 5, 2020 scheduling order set forth the schedule for the parties to serve 25 confidential briefs. Pursuant to the May 5, 2020 scheduling order, Plaintiff’s opening brief was 26 to be filed within thirty days of service of Defendant’s confidential reply brief. Defendant filed a 27 proof of service showing that the reply brief was served on January 5, 2021. More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiff again has failed to comply with the May 5, 2020 scheduling order. 1 | Plaintiff has not filed her opening brief in compliance with the May 5, 2020 scheduling order or 2 | sought an extension of time to do so. 3 Local Rule 110 provides that “[flailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 4 | Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 5 | sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 6 | control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 7 | including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 8 | 2000). 9 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE within five 10 | (5) days of the date of entry of this order this matter should not be dismissed for failure to 11 | comply and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to show cause may 12 | result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of this action for failure to 13 | prosecute. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. OF. nf ee 16 | Dated: _ February 10, 2021 _ □ 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28