Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01761/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01761-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Phil Campbell
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

Phil Campbell initiated this action by filing a complaint on November 19, 2015, seeking judicial 

review of the decision to denying his application for Social Security benefits. (Doc. 1) On December 

29, 2015, the Court entered its Scheduling Order, setting forth the applicable deadlines. (Doc. 10) 

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the parties exchanged their confidential briefs, with Defendant 

serving the Commissioner’s response on September 29, 2016. (Doc. 18) 

In the Scheduling Order, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an opening brief addressing “each 

claimed error” by the administrative law judge “within thirty (30) days of service of respondent’s 

response.” (See Doc. 10 at 2; id. at 4, explaining the applicable briefing deadlines) Accordingly, 

Plaintiff was to file his opening brief in this action no later than October 31, 2016.

1

 Plaintiff did not 

do so.

 

1

The deadline of October 29, 2016 fell on a Saturday. As a result, Plaintiff’s opening brief was to be filed no 

later than Monday, October 31, 2016. 

PHIL CAMPBELL,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01761 - 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 1:15-cv-01761-JLT Document 19 Filed 11/01/16 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

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 

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 fourteen days of the date of service 

of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute or to follow the 

Court’s Order, or to file an opening brief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01761-JLT Document 19 Filed 11/01/16 Page 2 of 2