Little v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Full title: ANDREW LITTLE, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Apr 18, 2013

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00447 - JLT (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2013)

Opinion

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00447 - JLT

04-18-2013

ANDREW LITTLE, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

Jennifer L. Thurston

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

Andrew Little ("Plaintiff") initiated this action by filing a complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis on March 27, 2013. (Docs. 1-2). On April 1, 2013, the Court noted Plaintiff's affidavit in support of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis failed to provide sufficient information for the Court to make a determinewhether Plaintiff satisfies the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (Doc. 3). Accordingly, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis within fourteen days of the date of service of the order. Id. To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court's order.

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: "Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court." Local Rule 110. "District courts have inherent power to control their dockets," and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party's failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court's order, or in the alternative, to file an amended affidavit supporting his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, including information on how Plaintiff is supporting himself, or his dependence on another. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Jennifer L. Thurston

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE