Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00801/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00801-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES RAY GREENLEA,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00801-SAB

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 

CAUSE WITHIN FIVE DAYS WHY THIS 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE OR FILE 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

(ECF No. 4.)

On June 9, 2016, Plaintiff Charles Ray Greenlea (“Plaintiff”) proceeding pro se in this action, 

filed a complaint challenging the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying him 

disability benefits. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this 

action without prepayment of fees. (ECF No. 2.) On June 14, 2016, an order issued requiring 

Plaintiff to either file a long form application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee 

within twenty days. (ECF No. 4.) 

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 

sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 

control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate,

including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 

2000).

Case 1:16-cv-00801-DAD-SAB Document 5 Filed 07/11/16 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

A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to 

obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 

53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 

1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order to file an amended 

complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to 

comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. 

United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply 

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

of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

Plaintiff was ordered to either file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the 

filing fee within twenty days of the June 14, 2016 order. In the order, Plaintiff was advised that 

failure to comply with the order would result in this action being dismissed. (ECF No. 4.) More 

than twenty days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed the application to proceed in forma

pauperis, paid the filing fee in this action, or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. Plaintiff 

has failed to comply with the order requiring him to pay the filing fee or demonstrate that he is 

eligible to proceed without prepayment of the fee. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause within five (5) 

days from the date of entry of this order why this action should not be dismissed for failure to 

comply with the June 14, 2016 order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 11, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00801-DAD-SAB Document 5 Filed 07/11/16 Page 2 of 2