Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01383/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01383-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial 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

On June 8, 2015, Defendant served a response to Plaintiff’s confidential letter brief. (Doc. 10.) 

Pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order, if the parties did not agree to remanding the action to the 

Commissioner for further proceedings, Plaintiff’s opening brief was to be filed with the Court within 

thrity days of the date of service. (Doc. 8-1 at 2.) Accordingly, Plaintiff was to file an opening brief in 

this action no later than July 6, 2015. To date, Plaintiff has neither filed the opening brief, nor 

requested an extension of time. 

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 impose sanctions based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or 

LORI WELEIN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01383 - JLT

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS 

SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S 

ORDER

Case 1:14-cv-01383-JLT Document 11 Filed 07/10/15 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

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 for failure to comply with an order); Malone 

v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing sanctions for failure to comply 

with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (imposing sanctions

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 sanctions should not be imposed for failure comply the Court’s Order or, in the 

alternative, to file her opening brief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01383-JLT Document 11 Filed 07/10/15 Page 2 of 2