Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00702/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00702-5/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

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

PHYLLIS L.FATH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, )

Commissioner of Social Security, ) 

 )

Defendant. )

 )

1:08-cv-0702-JLT

AMENDED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

WHY AMENDED COMPLAINT SHOULD

NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO

COMPLY WITH SCHEDULING ORDER

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action seeking judicial review of a final decision of

the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for benefits.

By previous order of the Court, Plaintiff was granted an extension of time to file an

Opening Brief until February 8, 2010. (Doc. 30). Plaintiff failed to comply with the deadline set

by the Court in that order, which in turn modified the original scheduling order to provide her

additional time to file an Opening Brief. The scheduling order explained that failure to comply

with its provisions may result in sanctions pursuant to Local Rule 11-110 (now Local Rule 110).

(Doc. 8 at 4.)

By previous order, Plaintiff was granted until February 26, 2010 to either file an Opening

Brief or, in lieu thereof, a motion seeking an extension of time supported by good cause. (Doc.

32). Plaintiff was forewarned that failure to comply with that Order would result in dismissal of

this action pursuant to the inherent power of the Court or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

1

Case 1:08-cv-00702-JLT Document 33 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), 11; Local Rule 11-110 (now Local Rule 110); Chambers v. NASCO, Inc.,

501 U.S. 31, 42-43 (1991). 

The Court notes that service on Plaintiff was delayed and not mailed to her address of

record until February 25, 2010. In light of this delay, the Court will extend Plaintiff’s deadline to

respond to the original Order to Show Cause until March 31, 2010 as previously outlined.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall have until March 31, 2010, to file an Opening Brief that complies

with paragraph 11 of the Court’s Scheduling Order of May 21, 2008 (Doc. 8) or,

in lieu thereof, a motion for an extension of time supported by good cause.

2. Defendant shall have 30 days from the filing of Plaintiff’s Opening Brief

within which to file a Responsive Brief. 

3. Failure to respond to this order as directed will result in dismissal of this action

with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

2

Case 1:08-cv-00702-JLT Document 33 Filed 03/17/10 Page 2 of 2