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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 LARRY WAYNE SMITH, Case No. 1:21-cv-01513-SAB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS 12 v. SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO FILE OPENING BRIEF 13 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, (ECF No. 11) 14 Defendant. DEADLINE: DECEMBER 2, 2022 15 16 17 On October 13, 2021, Plaintiff Larry Wayne Smith, originally proceeding pro se, filed 18 this action seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security 19 (“Commissioner”) denying an application for disability benefits pursuant to the Social Security 20 Act. (ECF No. 1.) On April 1, 2022, the Court issued an amended scheduling order. (ECF No. 21 11.) Pursuant to the amended scheduling order, Plaintiff’s opening brief was due 45 days after 22 the filing of the administrative record. (Id. at 2.) The administrative record was lodged on 23 September 28, 2022 (ECF No. 13); thus, Plaintiff’s opening brief was due by November 14, 24 2022. On November 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney, and is now represented 25 by attorney Jonathan Pena. (ECF No. 14.) However, neither an opening brief, nor other 26 filings, have been submitted. 27 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 1 | sanctions ... within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 2 | control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 3 | including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 4] 2000). 5 Plaintiff's failure to timely file the opening brief, or seek an extension to do so, 6 | constitutes a failure to comply with the Court’s order. Accordingly, Plaintiff will be directed to 7 | show cause why sanctions should not issue for failure to file the opening brief in compliance 8 | with the Court’s April 1, 2022 scheduling order (ECF No. 11). 9 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than December 2, 10 | 2022, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why sanctions should not issue for the failure to 11 | comply with the Court’s orders and timely file an opening brief in this matter. Failure to 12 | comply with this order will result in the imposition of sanctions up to and including dismissal 13 | of this action. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 16 | Dated: _ November 28, 2022 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28