Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01676/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01676-1/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

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

JON J. SPROUT,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-1676 SKO

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On September 21, 2009, Plaintiff filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review

of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant” or the “Commissioner”)

denying Plaintiff’s applications for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental SecurityIncome. 

(Doc. 1.) On September 22, 2009, the Court issued a scheduling order directing (1) Plaintiff to serve

upon Defendant a letter brief within thirty (30) days after service of the administrative record;

(2) Defendant to serve a response to Plaintiff’s letter brief within thirty-five (35) days thereafter;

(3) the parties to file any stipulation to a remand within fifteen (15) days after Defendant’s response;

and (4) Plaintiff to file and serve an opening brief within thirty (30) days of Defendant’s response

if Defendant did not agree to a remand to the Commissioner. (Doc. 6 ¶¶ 3-6.) Defendant’s

responsive brief was due within thirty (30) days after service of Plaintiff’s opening brief. (Doc. 6

¶ 7.)

Case 1:09-cv-01676-SKO Document 13 Filed 06/21/10 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

The Commissioner filed and served the administrative record on February 5, 2010. (Doc.

10.) Plaintiff filed his opening brief on May 4, 2010. (Doc. 12.) The Court’s review of the docket

indicates that, to date, Defendant has neither filed his brief nor requested additional time to do so.

The Court has the inherent power “to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with

economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S.

248, 254 (1936). To that end, “[d]istrict courts retain broad discretion to control their dockets and

‘[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or

dismissal.’” Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (second

alteration in original); see also Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 398 (9th Cir. 1998);

Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that, no later than June 25, 2010, Defendant shall file

his responsive brief or show cause why the Court should not impose sanctions under Local Rule 110

for failing to comply with an order of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-01676-SKO Document 13 Filed 06/21/10 Page 2 of 2