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

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ARMAN AGUILAR, Case No. 1:21-cv-000015-BAK (SKO) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE 11 v. A FOC RTI PO LN A S INH TO IU FL F’D S N FO AT IL B UE R ED I TS OM ISSED 12 COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER 13 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,1 (Doc. 18) 14 Defendant. FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE 15 16 _____________________________________/ 17 18 On December 15, 2021, Jonathan Omar Pena, counsel for Plaintiff Arman Aguilar, filed a 19 notice of “Suggestion of Death” upon the record. (Doc. 17.) Mr. Pena attached Plaintiff’s death 20 certificate to the notice, indicating Plaintiff had died on November 1, 2021. (See Doc. 17-1.) 21 Pursuant to Rule 25(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court ordered that “[a]ny 22 motion to substitute a party as plaintiff shall be filed no later than March 17, 2022.” (Doc. 18 at 2, 23 emphasis omitted.) To date, no motion for substitution has been filed. 24 The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 25 corresponding with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel 26 27 1 On July 9, 2021, Kilolo Kijakazi was named Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. See https://www.ssa.gov/history/commissioners.html. She is therefore substituted as the defendant in this action. See 42 28 U.S.C. § 405(g) (referring to the “Commissioner’s Answer”); 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(d) (“the person holding the Office 1 or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the 2 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 3 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court 4 may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los 5 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based 6 on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with 7 local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 8 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 9 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson 10 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply 11 with local rules). 12 Accordingly, Plaintiff is again ORDERED to show cause, within fourteen (14) days of 13 the date of service of this Order, why the action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure 14 comply with the Court’s order and for failure to prosecute his case. Alternatively, within that 15 same time period, Plaintiff may file a motion for substitution. The Court further CAUTIONS if 16 action is not taken within fourteen days of the date of service of this order, the Court will dismiss 17 this case. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: March 31, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28