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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ZACHARY DONZELL, Case No. 1:20-cv-00418-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT 13 v. BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendant. 16 17 This matter comes before the Court upon periodic review of the file. Plaintiff initiated 18 this action on March 20, 2020. (Doc. No. 1). The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to 19 proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 4). On March 25, 2020, the Clerk issued summons (Doc. 20 No. 5) and a scheduling order issued (Doc. No. 6). On October 21, 2021, the Commissioner 21 lodges the certified administrative record (“CAR”) and the Court lifted the stay in this action the 22 next day. (Doc. Nos. 15, 16). The filing of the CAR triggers certain deadlines, including the 23 deadline for Plaintiff to file certain notices with the Court and to file an opening brief in this 24 matter. (Doc. No. 6 at 2, ¶2 b, e). A review of the docket reveals no action by Plaintiff to 25 prosecute this case subsequent to the filing of the CAR. See docket. Specifically, Plaintiff has 26 not filed an opening brief by the deadline specified in the Scheduling Order. (Id., requiring 27 opening brief no later than 105 days after the filing of the CAR). 28 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits courts to involuntarily dismiss an action 1 | when a litigant fails to prosecute an action or fails to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. 2 | P. 41(b); see Applied Underwriters v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 889 (9th Cir. 2019) (citations 3 | omitted); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) 4 | (“[T]he consensus among our sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss 5 | under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”). Local Rule 110 similarly 6 || permits courts to impose sanctions on a party who fails to comply with a court order. 7 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 8 1. Within fourteen (14) days from receipt of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause why 9 | this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with the scheduling order. 10 | If Plaintiff fails to respond to this Order, or explain his inability to respond, the undersigned will 11 || recommend the District Court dismiss this case without further notice. 12 2. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file a notice to voluntarily dismiss this case under Fed. 13 | R. Civ. P. 41 (a) within fourteen (14) days. 14 | Dated: _ August 9, 2022 Mile. Wh. foareh Zaskth 16 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28