Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01687/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01687-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Steven Pierce
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

STEVEN PIERCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:14-cv-1687-BAM

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR 

DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO COMPLY 

WITH THE COURT’S ORDER 

RESPONSE DUE: April 22, 2016 

On March 3, 2016, after significant delay by both parties in this case, the Court held and 

Order to Show Cause hearing for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s scheduling order. 

(Doc. 20). Counsel Kelsey Brown appeared in person on behalf of the Plaintiff. Counsel Sharon 

Lahey appeared by telephone on behalf of the Defendant. At the hearing, the Court expressed 

grave concerns about the myriad of delays in this case. The Court further stressed that the lack 

of compliance with the Court’s scheduling order has caused additional work for the Court in 

monitoring and addressing the lapses in this action. The Court, however, granted Plaintiff leave 

to file an untimely opening brief and ORDERED Defendant to file her response brief within 

thirty (30) days after the service of Plaintiff’s opening brief. (Doc. 22). 

Despite the Court’s repeated direction for the parties to comply with the scheduling order, 

Defendant’s response brief is now overdue. While Plaintiff filed his opening brief on March 3, 

2016, Defendant’s time to file her responsive brief elapsed over ten days ago. To date, no 

Case 1:14-cv-01687-BAM Document 23 Filed 04/18/16 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

2

response has been filed by Defendant. Nor has Defendant sought an extension of time to file her 

responsive brief. 

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 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 may issue sanctions, 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) (sanctions for failure to comply with an order); Malone 

v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (same) Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 

1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (sanctions for failure to comply with local rules).

Accordingly, Defendant is HEREBY ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why sanctions 

should not be imposed for Defendant’s failure to comply with the Court’s scheduling order. 

Defendant shall file a written response to this order to how cause no later than April 22, 2016. 

Defendant is forewarned that failure to respond to this order to show cause will result in the 

imposition of sanctions, including an award of benefits.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01687-BAM Document 23 Filed 04/18/16 Page 2 of 2