Opinion
Case No.: 1:15-cv-01794 - JLT
01-07-2016
DEBORAH JEAN WILBURN, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED AND HER APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS SHOULD NOT BE DENIED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER
Plaintiff Deborah Jean Wilburn initiated this action for judicial review of the administrative decision denying her application for Social Security benefits by filing a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on November 30, 2015. (Docs. 1, 2) The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees "by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such person . . . possesses [and] that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
The Court reviewed Plaintiff's application and found the information provided was insufficient to determine whether Plaintiff satisfies the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3 at 2) In addition, the Court cautioned Plaintiff that "failure to comply with this order may result in denial of her application to proceed in forma pauperis." (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to or otherwise comply with 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 14 days of the date of service of this Order why sanctions should not be imposed for her failure to comply with the Court's order or to file an amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7 , 2016
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE