(SS) Cisneros v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NICOLAS ZAVALA CISNEROS, No. 1:19-cv-01307-GSA 8 Plaintiff, 9 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY v. THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE 10 CLOSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE 11 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social TO OBEY COURT ORDER Security, 12 (Doc. 3) Defendant. 13 14 15 On September 18, 2019, Plaintiff Nicolas Zavala Cisneros filed a complaint seeking 16 review of the Commissioner’s denial of his claim for Social Security disability benefits and 17 moved to proceed without payment of the applicable filing fees (in forma pauperis). In response 18 to question five of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff stated that he owned “real 19 estate, bonds, securities, other financial instruments, automobiles or any other thing of value,” but 20 21 did not complete the portion of the question requiring him to describe the property and state its 22 value. Accordingly, on September 19, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to amend the application 23 within ten days to include complete disclosure of household income and assets. Doc. 3. 24 Although over ten days have elapsed since the Court issued the order, Plaintiff has neither 25 amended his application to proceed in forma pauperis nor paid the filing fee for the complaint. 26 Rule 110 of this Court’s Local Rules provides that the “failure of counsel or of a party to 27 comply … with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 28 1 sanctions … within the inherent power of the Court.” This Court has the inherent power to 2 manage its docket. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may 3 dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey 4 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 5 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 6 7 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 8 complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to 9 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Henderson v. 10 Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to 11 comply with local rules). 12 Given the above, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file a written response to this Order to 13 Show Cause within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order explaining why he has not amended 14 15 the application, or paid the filing fee for his complaint. In the alternative, Plaintiff may, within 16 fifteen (15) days of the date of this order, file an amended application to proceed in forma 17 pauperis or pay the filing fee for the complaint. 18 Failure of Plaintiff to respond to this Order to Show Cause within the time specified 19 will result in the undersigned’s recommending that the Clerk of Court close the case for 20 failure to pay the filing fee. 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: October 23, 2019 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28