Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01526/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01526-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Gary Gonsalves
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

GARY GONSALVES,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09cv1526 SKO

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On August 26, 2009, Plaintiff filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3)

seeking review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant” or the

“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s applications for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental

Security Income. (Doc. 1.) On August 28, 2009, the Court issued a scheduling order directing

(1) Plaintiff to serve upon Defendant a letter brief within thirty (30) days after service of the

administrative record; (2) Defendant to serve a response to Plaintiff’s letter brief within thirty-five

(35) days thereafter; (3) the parties to file any stipulation of remand within fifteen (15) days after

Defendant’s response; and (4) Plaintiff to file and serve an opening brief within thirty (30) days of

Defendant’s response if Defendant did not agree to a remand to the Commissioner. (Doc. 7 ¶¶ 3-6.) 

The Commissioner filed and served the administrative record on January 6, 2010. (Doc. 13.) 

On April 12, 2010, the Court granted, upon the parties’stipulation, an extension of time to May 10,

Case 1:09-cv-01526-SKO Document 19 Filed 05/12/10 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

2010, for Plaintiff to file his opening brief. (Doc. 18.) The Court’s review of the docket indicates

that, to date, Plaintiff has neither filed his brief nor requested additional time to do so.

The Court has the inherent power “to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with

economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S.

248, 254 (1936). To that end, “[d]istrict courts retain broad discretion to control their dockets and

‘[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or

dismissal.’” Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (second

alteration in original); see also Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 398 (9th Cir. 1998);

Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992). 

In the courts, there is room for only so much lenity. The district court must

consider the equities not only to plaintiff and his counsel, but also to the opposing

parties and counsel, as well as to the public, including those persons affected by the

court’s increasingly crowded docket. Counsel must take responsibility for the

obligations to which he committed and get the work done by the

deadline. . . . Deadlines are not meant to be aspirational; counsel must not treat the

goodwill of the court as a sign that, as long as counsel tries to act, he has carte

blanche permission to perform when he desires. A district court must be able to

exercise its managerial power to maintain control over its docket. This power is

necessary for the court to administer effective justice and prevent congestion.

Young v. City of Palm Bay, 358 F.3d 859, 864 (11th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that, no later than May 17, 2010, Plaintiff shall file his

opening brief or show cause why the Court should not impose sanctions under Local Rule 110,

including dismissal, for failing to comply with an order of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-01526-SKO Document 19 Filed 05/12/10 Page 2 of 2