Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01686/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01686-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Maria Pelayo
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

MARIA PELAYO,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01686-SAB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

RESPONSE DUE DECEMBER 15, 2015

On November 5, 2015, Plaintiff Maria Pelayo (“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint and paid 

the filing fee in this action. (ECF No. 1.) On November 9, 2015, the Court issued the summons 

and scheduling order in this action. (ECF Nos. 2, 3.) The scheduling order required Plaintiff to 

serve the summons and complaint in this action and file a return of service within twenty days of 

filing the complaint. To date, no return of service has been filed with the Court and there is no 

indication that Plaintiff has served the summons or complaint. 

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).

Case 1:15-cv-01686-SAB Document 4 Filed 12/04/15 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

Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why this action should 

not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s scheduling order and 

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action. Plaintiff shall file a written response to this order to 

show cause no later than December 15, 2015. Plaintiff is forewarned that failure to respond to 

this order to show cause will result in the dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01686-SAB Document 4 Filed 12/04/15 Page 2 of 2