From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Caudel v. Saul

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 1, 2019
Case No.: 1:19-cv-1255-JLT (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2019)

Opinion

Case No.: 1:19-cv-1255-JLT

10-01-2019

LAQUITTA ANN CAUDEL, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS SHOULD NOT BE DENIED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER TO FILE AN AMENDED APPLICATION

Laquitta Ann Caudel seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in this action for judicial review of the administrative decision denying her application for Social Security benefits. The Court found the information provided by Plaintiff in her motion to proceed in forma pauperis was insufficient to determine whether Plaintiff satisfies the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (Doc. 3) Therefore, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended application, including additional information regarding her household expenses. (Id. at 2) The Court advised 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 not filed an amended application.

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 her application to proceed in forma pauperis should not be denied or to pay the filing fee in this action. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1 , 2019

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Caudel v. Saul

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 1, 2019
Case No.: 1:19-cv-1255-JLT (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2019)
Case details for

Caudel v. Saul

Case Details

Full title:LAQUITTA ANN CAUDEL, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Oct 1, 2019

Citations

Case No.: 1:19-cv-1255-JLT (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2019)