Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01148/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01148-5/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 seeks judicial review of the decision to deny her application for Social Security 

benefits. (Doc. 1) On March 9, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve a confidential letter brief upon 

the Commissioner of Social Security within thirty days, and to file a proof of service with the Court. 

(Doc. 15 at 2) Thus, Plaintiff was to serve the brief and file a proof of service no later than April 13, 2-

2-. To date, 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 

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 

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 17 Filed 04/21/20 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

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 of the date of service 

of this order 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: April 21, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01148-JLT Document 17 Filed 04/21/20 Page 2 of 2