Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01572/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01572-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:402 Social Security Benefits

---

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

Cherie Renee Rodriguez seeks judicial review of a decision to denying her application for 

Social Security benefits. (Doc. 1) On November 6, 2019, the Court issued its Scheduling Order, setting

forth the applicable deadlines. (Doc. 5-1) 

Plaintiff served a confidential letter brief upon Defendant on April 7, 2020. (Doc. 11) Pursuant 

to the terms of the Scheduling Order, within thirty-five days of the date of service of the confidential 

letter brief, the Commissioner was to serve a response and file a proof of service. (Doc. 5-1 at 2) To 

date, the Commissioner has not filed a proof of service indicating a response was served upon Plaintiff. 

In addition, the Commissioner did not request an extension of time to 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. 

CHERIE RENEE RODRIGUEZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-1572 - JLT 

ORDER TO DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE 

WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 

FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE 

COURT’S ORDER

Case 1:19-cv-01572-JLT Document 12 Filed 05/14/20 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

Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court impose 

sanctions, including terminating sanctions, for a party’s 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) 

(imposing sanctions terminating for failure to comply with an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 

833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing terminating sanctions for failure to comply with a court 

order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (sanctions for failure to prosecute 

and to comply with local rules).

Accordingly, the Commissioner is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen why the 

sanctions should not be imposed for failure to follow the Court’s Order or to serve a response to 

Plaintiff’s confidential letter brief and file proof of service with the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01572-JLT Document 12 Filed 05/14/20 Page 2 of 2