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

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 ROSE EDEZA AGUILERA, CASE NO.: 1:21-cv-00384-GSA 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 9 v. T DH ISI MS IC SA SS EE D S FH OO RU FL AD I LN UO RT E B TE O 10 K CoIL mO mL iO ss iK onIJ eA r oK fA SZ oI c, i aA l C ST ecIN urG ity , PROSECUTE 11 12 Defendant. 13 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this act ion on March 11, 2021 challenging the 14 Commissioner of Social Security’s determination denying her disability benefits. Doc. 1. Plaintiff 15 was served a copy of the Order Regarding Consent or Request for Reassignment on March 15, 16 2021, and was also served a copy of the form of Consent/Decline of Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. 17 Doc. 5-1, 5-2. Within 90 days of March 15, 2021, Plaintiff was to complete the form (Doc. 5-2) 18 indicating whether she consents to proceed before a magistrate judge for all proceedings including 19 entry of final judgment, or whether she would request reassignment to a United States District 20 Judge. On February 28, 2022, Plaintiff was again directed to complete the same on or before March 21 21, and was served an additional copy of the form at her home address. Doc. 16. 22 Pursuant to the scheduling order issued in this matter on February 28, 2022, Doc. 17, 23 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was also due on or before April 15, 2022. Plaintiff has 24 not filed her motion for summary judgment explaining why judgment should be entered in her 25 favor, nor has she filed the consent form. 26 Pursuant to Local Rule 110, “failure of counsel or of a party to comply … with any order 27 of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions … within the 28 1 inherent power of the Court.” This Court has the inherent power to manage its docket. Thompson 2 v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s 3 failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, 4 e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); 5 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an 6 order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) 7 (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 8 address); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution 9 and failure to comply with local rules). 10 Accordingly, on or before June 11, 2022 Plaintiff is DIRECTED to complete the consent 11 form and her motion for summary judgment and submit the same to the clerk’s office. 1 12 Alternatively, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to submit a written explanation by June 11, 2022 13 identifying good cause for why the documents have not been filed and identifying a date certain for 14 completing them. If no response is received by June 11, 2022, the undersigned will enter findings 15 and recommendations for this case to be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 16 The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to serve Plaintiff a paper copy of this order at her home 17 address. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: May 11, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 26 Eastern District of California Office of the Clerk 27 501 I Street Suite 4-200 28 Sacramento, California 95814