Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00215/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00215-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Micaela Cervantes
Plaintiff
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant

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

MICAELA CERVANTES,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00215-SAB

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO 

SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

FIVE DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Micaela Cervantes filed this action on February 12, 2016. Pursuant to the 

scheduling order issued February 17, 2016, in the event Defendant does not agree to a remand, 

Plaintiff shall file and serve an opening brief with the court and on Defendant within thirty (30) 

days of service of Defendant’s response. (ECF No. 3-1.) On July 7, 2016, an order issued 

addressing the parties’ stipulation for an extension of time for Plaintiff to serve a confidential 

letter brief and an extension for all other deadlines. (ECF No. 11.) Defendant served her 

confidential letter brief on September 26, 2016. (ECF No. 13.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s opening 

brief was to be filed on or before October 31, 2016. Plaintiff did not file an opening brief by 

October 31, 2016. 

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 

Case 1:16-cv-00215-SAB Document 14 Filed 11/04/16 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

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).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a written response to 

this order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute within 

five (5) days of the date of service of this order. Failure to comply with this order to show cause 

shall result in this action being dismissed for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00215-SAB Document 14 Filed 11/04/16 Page 2 of 2