Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01601/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01601-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Debra Lynn Fordyce (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action by filing a complaint on September 28, 

2012. (Doc. 1). The Court issued Summons for the Commissioner of Social Security and its 

Scheduling Order on October 1, 2012. (Docs. 4-5). 

The Court ordered, “within twenty (20) days of filing the complaint, appellant shall serve the 

summons, complaint, the notice and form of consent to proceed before a magistrate judge provided by 

Local Rule 305(a), and a copy of this order and file a return of service with this court.” (Doc. 5 at 2). 

Further, the Court instructed: “[W]ithin 90 days, all parties shall complete and return the enclosed 

“Consent to Assignment or Request for Reassignment.” (Doc. 5-1 at 1). To date, Plaintiff has not 

filed proof of service, and she failed to complete the form indicating whether she consents to the 

jurisdiction of the magistrate judge.

DEBRA FORDYCE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01601 - JLT

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE 

TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS

Case 1:12-cv-01601-AWI-JLT Document 6 Filed 01/07/13 Page 1 of 2
2

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

27

28

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.” LR 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 based upon a party’s failure to obey a court order, failure to 

prosecute an action, 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).

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of service of 

this Order why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to follow the 

Court’s Orders, or in the alternative, to file proof of service and complete and file the consent form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

Case 1:12-cv-01601-AWI-JLT Document 6 Filed 01/07/13 Page 2 of 2