(SS) Rachel L. Prieto v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RACHEL LILLIAN PRIETO, Case No. 1:21-cv-00816-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, DEADLINE: MAY 4, 2022 14 Defendant. 15 16 On May 19, 2021, Plaintiff Rachel Lillian Prieto filed this action seeking judicial review 17 of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying an 18 application for disability benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1.) On 19 November 17, 2021, the administrative transcript was lodged. (ECF No. 13.) On November 20 18, 2021, the Court issued an order advising the parties of the lifting of the stay of action and 21 directing the parties to proceed pursuant to the March 16, 2021 scheduling order. (ECF No. 22 14.) Thereafter, the parties twice stipulated to extend the time for Plaintiff to file the opening 23 brief. (ECF Nos. 17, 19.) The second extension granted by the Court for was sixty days. (See 24 ECF No. 20.) Based on these extensions, Plaintiff’s opening brief was due April 25, 2022. 25 (See id.) However, an independent review of the docket reveals that, as of April 28, 2022, no 26 opening brief or other 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 file an opening brief by April 25, 2022, even after being granted 6 | multiple extensions of time to do so, constitutes a failure to comply with the Court’s order. Accordingly, Plaintiff will be directed to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for 8 | failing to file an opening brief in compliance with the Court’s February 24, 2022 order. 9 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than May 4, 2022, 10 | Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why she should not be sanctioned for failing to comply 11 | with the Court’s orders and timely submit an opening brief in this matter. Failure to comply 12 | with this order will result in the imposition of sanctions including but not limited to dismissal 13 | of this action. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 16 | Dated: _ April 28, 2022 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28