(SS) Curlee 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 LARRY JOHN CURLEE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00145-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION 13 v. SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, (ECF Nos. 5, 28) 15 Defendant. FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE 16 17 On January 29, 2020, Plaintiff Larry John Curlee, proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis, filed this action seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of 19 Social Security (“Commissioner” or “Defendant”) denying an application for benefits pursuant 20 to the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1.) On May 4, 2021, the Court lifted the stay of this action 21 and directed the parties to proceed under the scheduling order issued on January 31, 2020. (ECF 22 Nos. 5, 21.) On August 26, 2021, given that no filings indicating that confidential letter briefs 23 had been served or exchanged in this action, and given Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court found 24 good cause to amend the scheduling order and order the parties to proceed directly into a 25 simplified briefing schedule, waiving the requirement to exchange confidential letters. (ECF No. 26 30.) The Court also broadened the time for Plaintiff to file an opening brief pursuant to his 27 request, and ordered an opening brief to be filed within forty-five (45) days of service of the order. (Id.) 1 The deadline to file the opening brief has passed and Plaintiff has neither filed a brief nor 2 | requested a further extension of time to do so. Local Rule 110 provides that “[flailure of counsel 3 | or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for 4 | imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 5 | The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, 6 | impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles 7 | County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff SHALL SHOW CAUSE IN 9 | WRITING why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute within fourteen (14) 10 | days of the date of service of this order. Failure to comply with this order to show cause shall 11 | result in the recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 12 B IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 14 | Dated: _ October 14, 2021 Is UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28