Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01298/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01298-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Mike Rocha
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIKE ROCHA,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01298-SAB

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT 

BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PAY 

FILING FEE OR FILE APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS IN 

COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER

(ECF No. 3)

FIVE DAY DEADLINE

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 24, 2015, Plaintiff Mike Rocha (“Plaintiff”) filed this action seeking judicial 

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

“Defendant”) denying his application for disability benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act. 

Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this action without prepayment of 

fees stating that he was indigent. (ECF No. 2.) On August 25, 2015, an order issued requiring 

Plaintiff to either file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee within 

twenty days. More than twenty days have passed and Plaintiff has not complied with or 

otherwise responded to the Court’s August 25, 2015 order. 

Case 1:15-cv-01298-SAB Document 4 Filed 09/23/15 Page 1 of 3
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

II.

DISCUSSION

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 

Rules or 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.” The Court has the inherent power to 

control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 

including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 

2000). 

A court may dismiss an action 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 to file an amended

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); Malone v. 

United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply 

with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack 

of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 

Plaintiff was ordered to Plaintiff to either file an application to proceed in forma pauperis

or pay the filing fee within twenty days of the August 25, 2015 order. In the order, Plaintiff was 

advised that failure to comply with the order would result in this action being dismissed. (ECF 

No. 3.) More than twenty days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed the application to proceed 

in forma pauperis, paid the filing fee in this action, or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the order requiring him to pay the filing fee or demonstrate 

that he is eligible to proceed without prepayment of the fee. 

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within five days from the date 

of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this action should not be 

Case 1:15-cv-01298-SAB Document 4 Filed 09/23/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

dismissed for his failure to comply with the Court’s August 25, 2015 order. Failure to respond to 

this order shall result in this action being dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01298-SAB Document 4 Filed 09/23/15 Page 3 of 3