Opinion
Case No.: 1:17-cv-00486 - JLT
01-16-2018
CYNTHIA STILLS, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER
Cynthia Stills initiated this action by filing a complaint on April 5, 2017, seeking judicial review of the decision to denying her application for Social Security benefits. (Doc. 1) On April 11, 2017, the Court entered its Scheduling Order, setting forth the applicable deadlines. (Doc. 5) Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the parties exchanged confidential letter briefs, with Defendant serving the Commissioner's response on November 6, 2017. (Doc. 12)
In the Court's Scheduling Order, Plaintiff was ordered to file an opening brief addressing "each claimed error" by the administrative law judge within thirty days of the date of service of the Commissioner's response. (See Doc. 5 at 2, explaining the applicable briefing deadlines.) Plaintiff requested a thirty-day extension of time, which was granted by the Court. (Docs. 13, 14) Therefore, Plaintiff was ordered to "file an opening brief no later than January 5, 2018." (Doc. 14 at 1) To date, she has not filed an opening brief or requested a further extension of time.
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); 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 her failure to prosecute or to follow the Court's Order or to file the opening brief. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 16 , 2018
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE