Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01301/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01301-1/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

Patricia Kathryn Obrien initiated this action by filing a complaint on September 17, 2019, 

seeking judicial review of the decision to deny her application for Social Security benefits. (Doc. 1)

On September 24, 2019, the Court issued its Scheduling Order, setting forth the deadlines governing 

the action. (Doc. 5) 

The Commissioner of Social Security filed the certified administrative record in the matter on 

February 4, 2020. (Doc. 9) Pursuant to the terms of the Scheduling Order, within thirty days of the 

filing of the administrative record, Plaintiff was to serve “a letter brief outlining the reasons why [she]

... contends that a remand is warranted,” and file “proof of service reflecting that the letter brief was 

served.” (Doc. 5 at 2) Thus, Plaintiff was to serve a confidential letter brief no later than March 5, 

2020. However, Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service, and she did not request an extension of time 

to comply with the deadline.

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 

ANDREA VARELA CHAVEZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW M. SAUL,

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-1301 - JLT 

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE 

WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 

THE COURT’S ORDER AND FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

Case 1:19-cv-01301-JLT Document 11 Filed 03/09/20 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

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 dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute 

an action or 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) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order); 

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

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

prosecute and to comply with local rules).

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days why the action 

should not be dismissed for her failure to follow the Court’s order and failure to prosecute the action. 

Alternatively, she SHALL serve the confidential letter brief and file proof of service with the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01301-JLT Document 11 Filed 03/09/20 Page 2 of 2