Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00914/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00914-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Jacqueline Perez
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

Jacqueline Perez initiated this action by filing a complaint for judicial review of the 

administrative decision denying her application for Social Security benefits on June 14, 2014. (Doc. 1.)

Because Plaintiff sought to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint on June 

17, 2014. (Doc. 3.) The Court directed the Clerk to issue documents including: “the Scheduling Order, 

Order regarding Consent, the Consent Form, and USM-285 Forms.” (Id. at 4.) In the USM-285 Forms, 

Plaintiff was instructed to provide the Clerk’s Office with summons, copies of the Order directing 

service by the U.S. Marshal, copies of the complaint, and the completed USM-285 Form. (Doc. 3-1 at 

1.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to file these documents, and it appears Defendant has not been served 

with the Complaint.

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 

JACQUELINE PEREZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00914 - 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-00914-JLT Document 6 Filed 09/22/14 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

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 14 days of the date of service of 

this Order why the action should not be dismissed for her failure comply with the Court’s order. In the 

alternative, within the same fourteen days, Plaintiff shall complete the Notice of Submission of 

Documents and file the service documents identified in the Court’s order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00914-JLT Document 6 Filed 09/22/14 Page 2 of 2