(SS) Hamilton v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RATANA HAMILTON, Case No. 1:21-cv-01337-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS 13 v. SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO FILE OPENING BRIEF 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, (ECF No. 16) 15 Defendant. FIVE DAY DEADLINE 16 17 On September 7, 2021, Plaintiff Ratana Hamilton filed this action seeking judicial review 18 of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying an 19 application for disability benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1.) On August 20 16, 2022, the Court granted an unopposed motion extending the time to file an opening brief 21 until September 15, 2022. (ECF No. 16.) No opening brief has been filed and the deadline to do 22 so has expired. 23 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 24 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 25 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 26 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 27 including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). 1 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within five (5) days of entry of 2 | this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why Plaintiff should not be sanctioned for 3 | failing to timely submit an opening brief in this matter, and may concurrently submit a request or 4 | a stipulation for a nunc pro tunc extension of time. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. = ee 7 | Dated: _September 20, 2022 _ ef UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28