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

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 ALI RAZAQI, CASE NUMBER: 1:20-cv-1705-GSA 7 Plaintiff, 8 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY v. THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE 9 DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social PROSECUTE 10 Security, 11 Defendant. 12 13 Pursuant to the scheduling order (Doc. 5), within 20 days thereof Plaintiff was directed to 14 serve on the defendant the summons, complaint, the notice and form of consent to proceed before 15 a magistrate judge (Doc. 5-2), a copy of the scheduling order (Doc. 5), and to file return of service 16 with this Court. Plaintiff was also directed to complete and file the consent/decline form (Doc. 5- 17 2) by March 8, 2021. 18 On April 12, 2021, the Court entered an order advising Plaintiff that the above deadlines 19 were in effect notwithstanding the entry of the stay and instructed Plaintiff to file and serve the 20 above documents within 20 days. Plaintiff did not do so, and the Court entered an order to show 21 cause on May 13, 2021. Doc. 8. 22 Plaintiff filed the consent/decline form on May 24, 2021. Although Plaintiff’s partial 23 compliance with the order to show cause is appreciated, Plaintiff still has not a filed proof of 24 service confirming that she served the above-referenced documents on Defendant. 25 Pursuant to Local Rule 110, “failure of counsel or of a party to comply … with any order 26 of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions … within the 27 inherent power of the Court.” This Court has the inherent power to manage its docket. Thompson 28 1 v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 2 party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local 3 rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance 4 with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure 5 to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440- 6 41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep 7 court apprised of address); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal 8 for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 9 Accordingly, by June 16, 2021 Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a written response as to why 10 this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Alternatively, Plaintiff may serve the 11 required documents on Defendant and file a proof of service by June 16, 2021 12 If no response is forthcoming on or before June 16, 2021 the Court will enter findings and 13 recommendations to dismiss this action for failure to prosecute. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: June 1, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28