Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00194/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00194-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Jeremy Christopher Kiesz
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 Jeremy Christopher Kiesz initiated this action by filing a complaint on February 12, 

2014, seeking judicial review of the decision to denying his application for Social Security benefits. 

(Doc. 1.) On February 18, 2014, the Court entered its Scheduling Order, setting forth the applicable 

deadlines. (Doc. 5.) Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, Defendant lodged the administrative record on 

August 5, 2014. (Doc. 11.) 

In the Court’s Scheduling Order, Plaintiff was ordered to file an opening brief addressing 

“each claimed error” by the administrative law judge within 95 days of the lodging of the 

administrative record. (See Doc. 5 at 2-3, explaining the applicable briefing deadlines.) Accordingly, 

Plaintiff was to file his opening brief in this action no later than November 10, 2014. However, 

Plaintiff failed to file an opening brief and has not requested an extension of time from the Court.

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 

JEREMY CHRISTOPHER KIESZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00194 - JLT 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S 

ORDER

Case 1:14-cv-00194-JLT Document 12 Filed 12/23/14 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

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 

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 the action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute or to follow the 

Court’s Order, or in the alternative to file an opening brief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 23, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00194-JLT Document 12 Filed 12/23/14 Page 2 of 2