Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01684/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01684-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Theresa Marie Brassfield
Plaintiff
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant

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 Theresa Marie Brassfield initiated this action by filing a complaint on October 27, 

2014, seeking judicial review of the administrative decision denying her application for Social Security 

benefits. (Doc. 1.) On November 4, 2014, the Court determined Plaintiff failed to allege facts 

sufficient for the Court to determine the matter of its jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 

3). Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint within thirty days of the date of service, or no 

later than December 4, 2014. (Id. at 4). To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with or otherwise 

respond to the Court’s order. 

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 

THERESA MARIE BRASSFIELD,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01684 - --- - JLT

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR HER FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S 

ORDER 

Case 1:14-cv-01684-JLT Document 4 Filed 12/09/14 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

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 

requiring amendment of complaint); 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 to prosecute and failure comply with 

the Court’s order or, in the alternative, to file an amended complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01684-JLT Document 4 Filed 12/09/14 Page 2 of 2