Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00889/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00889-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher James Castaneda
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 Christopher James Castaneda seeks judicial review of the administrative decision to 

deny his application for benefits arising under Title II of the Social Security Act. (Doc. 1.) On June 

17, 2015, the Court determined that it appeared Plaintiff’s request for judicial review failed to comply 

with the time limitations of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 4 at 3-4.) Therefore, the Court dismissed the 

complaint to give Plaintiff an opportunity to state “whether he requested an extension of time from the 

Appeals Council or, in the alternative, to allege facts that support the tolling of the statute of 

limitations.” (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint within 14 days of the date 

of service, or no later than July 1, 2015. (Id. at 5.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to file his First 

Amended Complaint 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 

CHRISTOPHER JAMES CASTANEDA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00889 - JLT 

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLY 

WITH THE COURT’S ORDER

Case 1:15-cv-00889-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 07/10/15 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 

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, within 14 days Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause why the action should not 

be dismissed for his failure comply with the Court’s order, or in the alternative, to file an amended 

complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00889-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 07/10/15 Page 2 of 2