Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00759/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00759-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:1383 Review of HHS Decision

---

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

HERMINIA O. CARREON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social 

Security,

Defendant.

No. 1:19-cv-00759-GSA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR 

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE 

TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER

Paragraph 3 of the Scheduling Order provides that within thirty (30) days after service of

the administrative record Plaintiff shall serve Defendant with a confidential letter brief and shall 

file with the Court a separate proof of service of the confidential letter brief. Doc. 4 at 2, ¶ 3.

Although the administrative record in this case was filed with the Court on October 28, 2019 (AR 

9), Plaintiff has not filed proof that a confidential letter brief was served on Defendant within 

thirty days thereafter. On December 30, 2019, the Court directed Plaintiff to file such proof of 

service within five days. Doc. 10. Plaintiff did not timely file proof of service or any other 

document with the Court.

///

Case 1:19-cv-00759-GSA Document 11 Filed 01/13/20 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

Rule 110 of this Court’s Local Rules provides that the “failure of counsel or of a party to 

comply ... 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.” This Court has the inherent power to 

manage its docket. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 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, 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 requiring amendment of 

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); Henderson v. 

Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to 

comply with local rules). 

Given the above, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file a written response to this Order to 

Show Cause WITHIN fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order explaining why she has not filed 

proof of service of a confidential letter brief in accordance with the provisions of the Scheduling 

Order (Doc. 4). In the alternative, Plaintiff may file the proof of service within fifteen (15) days 

of the date of this order. 

Failure of Plaintiff to respond to this Order to Show Cause within the time specified 

may result in dismissal of the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00759-GSA Document 11 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 2