Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01001/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01001-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:416 Denial of 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Ruth Gonzalez appealed defendant’s decision denying her application for Social 

Security benefits by filing a complaint before this court on August 26, 2018. ECF No. 1. 

Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis the same day. ECF No. 2. The court granted 

plaintiff’s motion and issued a summons. ECF Nos. 3, 4. The court also issued a scheduling 

order, which set a deadline of thirty days after service of the administrative record for plaintiff to 

serve defendant with her letter brief and to file proof of service. ECF No. 5, ¶3. Defendant filed 

the administrative record on November 27, 2019. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff has not filed a proof of 

service of her letter brief.

To manage our docket effectively, we impose deadlines on litigants and require litigants 

to meet them. When a plaintiff fails to comply with court-imposed deadlines, we may dismiss the 

case for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest 

RUTH GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01001-JDP

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:18-cv-01001-DAD-HBK Document 14 Filed 02/10/20 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

2

Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he consensus among our sister circuits, with which 

we agree, is that courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain 

circumstances.”). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but the court has a duty to administer

justice expeditiously and to avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 

F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 

We will give plaintiff the opportunity to explain why the court should not dismiss the case 

for her failure to prosecute. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to 

comply with a court order and will result in dismissal of this case. Accordingly, plaintiff must 

show cause within thirty days of the date of entry of this order why the court should not dismiss 

her case for failure to prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 204.

Case 1:18-cv-01001-DAD-HBK Document 14 Filed 02/10/20 Page 2 of 2