Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00823/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00823-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

Francisco Michael McElfresh seeks judicial review of a decision to denying his application for 

Social Security benefits. (Doc. 1) On June 24, 2019, the Court issued its Scheduling Order, setting forth

the applicable deadlines. (Doc. 6) 

Plaintiff filed an opening brief in this action on January 17, 2020. (Doc. 14) Pursuant to the 

terms of the Scheduling Order, within thirty date of service, the Commissioner was to file a responsive 

brief. (Doc. 6 at 3) Thus, the Commissioner’s response was due February 18, 2020.

1

 To date, the 

Commissioner has not responded to Plaintiff’s opening brief or requested an extension of time to 

comply with the Court’s order. 

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 

 

1 The filing deadline was extended from February 16 to February 18, 2020, because February 16 fell on a Sunday 

and the following day was federal holiday. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 6(a)(1)(C) (“if the last day [of a filing deadline] is a 

Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, 

or legal holiday”).

FRANCISCO MICHAEL MCELFRESH,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-823 - JLT 

ORDER TO DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE 

WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 

FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE 

COURT’S ORDER

Case 1:19-cv-00823-JLT Document 14 Filed 02/21/20 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

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. 

Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court impose 

sanctions, including terminating sanctions, for a party’s 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) 

(imposing sanctions terminating for failure to comply with an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 

833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing terminating sanctions for failure to comply with a court 

order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (sanctions for failure to prosecute 

and to comply with local rules).

Accordingly, within 14 days the Commissioner SHALL show cause in writing why the 

sanctions should not be imposed for failure to follow the Court’s order or to file a response to 

Plaintiff’s opening brief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00823-JLT Document 14 Filed 02/21/20 Page 2 of 2