Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01148/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01148-2/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

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint on August 22, 2019 seeking judicial review of 

the decision to deny her application for Social Security benefits. (Doc. 1) On August 27, 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 

January 22, 2020. (Doc.10) The Scheduling Order requires Plaintiff to serve “a letter brief outlining 

the reasons why he ... contends that a remand is warranted” and file “proof of service reflecting that the 

letter brief was served” within thirty days of the filing of the administrative record. (Doc. 5 at 2) Thus, 

Plaintiff was to serve a confidential letter brief no later than February 21, 2020. However, Plaintiff has 

not filed a proof of service and 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 

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 

JAMIE RACHELLE JOHN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-1148- 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-01148-JLT Document 11 Filed 02/25/20 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

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, within fourteen days, Plaintiff SHALL show cause why terminating sanctions 

should not be imposed for failure to follow the Court’s order and failure to prosecute the action or to

serve a confidential letter brief and file proof of service with the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01148-JLT Document 11 Filed 02/25/20 Page 2 of 2