Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01056/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01056-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:416 Denial of Social Security Benefits

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANI M. QUINTANA,

Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-01056-KJN

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

SECURITY,

Defendant. 

 /

Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, filed her complaint and motion to

proceed in this action in forma pauperis on April 17, 2009. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 2.) On April 20, 2009,

this court granted plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 5) and issued a

scheduling order setting forth, among other things, a deadline by which defendant was required

to file the administrative transcript and an answer or other response to plaintiff’s complaint, and a

deadline by which plaintiff was required to file a motion for summary judgment and/or remand. 

(Dkt. No. 6.) The scheduling order further provides: “The court will not contact counsel or the

parties to remind them of these scheduling deadlines. Failure to adhere to the schedule outlined

above may result in sanctions, including dismissal.” L.R. 11–110. Plaintiff has an affirmative

duty to prosecute this action, and failure to do so may result in dismissal for lack of prosecution. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).” (Dkt. No. 6 at 4.) 

On September 16, 2009, defendant lodged the administrative transcript with the

Case 2:09-cv-01056-KJN Document 22 Filed 04/28/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

court and filed an answer to plaintiff’s complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 14, 16.) 

Pursuant to the court’s scheduling order, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

would have been due on or before October 30, 2009. Plaintiff failed to file a timely motion for

summary judgment and, on January 12, 2010, filed a stipulation and proposed order seeking an

extension until March 26, 2010 to file her motion. (Dkt. No. 17.) Plaintiff only cited her

attorney’s “extremely impacted briefing schedule” as a reason for the extension. (Id. at 1.) 

Nevertheless, the court granted the extension. (Dkt. No. 19.)

Despite the generous extension, plaintiff failed to file a motion for summary

judgment by March 26, 2010. Instead, four days after the deadline, plaintiff filed a second

stipulation and proposed order seeking an extension to file her motion for summary judgment on

or before April 22, 2010, again citing plaintiff’s attorney’s “extremely impacted briefing

schedule” as the basis for the extension. (Dkt. No. 20.) In the hopes of not prejudicing plaintiff

due to her attorney’s apparent workload, the court granted the extension. (Dkt. No. 21.)

The April 22, 2010 deadline came and went, and the court’s docket reveals that

plaintiff has still not filed a motion for summary judgment. Neither plaintiff nor her counsel has

otherwise communicated with the court since the court approved the last stipulation. Plaintiff

has been given roughly five extra months in which to file a motion for summary judgment, but

she and her counsel have demonstrated a clear inability to prosecute this action. 

Accordingly, plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to show cause in writing, on or

before May 12, 2010, why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution and why

plaintiff’s counsel should not be sanctioned by the court for failure to adhere to the court’s Local

Rules and the orders entered in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E. Dist. Local Rules 110

(“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may

be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or

within the inherent power of the Court.”); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403

F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that a court may dismiss an action pursuant to Federal

Case 2:09-cv-01056-KJN Document 22 Filed 04/28/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with the

rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995)

(per curiam) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”)

Failure by plaintiff and her attorney to file the required writing within the time

provided will result in dismissal of this action. Moreover, plaintiff’s counsel is cautioned that it

will not be sufficient for plaintiff to merely file a late motion for summary judgment; she must

file the required writing. Additionally, reliance on plaintiff’s attorney’s “extremely impacted

briefing schedule” does not constitute sufficient cause to discharge this order and potential

sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 27, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-01056-KJN Document 22 Filed 04/28/10 Page 3 of 3