Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00197/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00197-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Robert Zamora
Plaintiff

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

In the Court’s Scheduling Order, Defendant was ordered to file a response to Plaintiff’s opening 

brief “within thirty (30) days after service of [the] opening brief.” (Doc. 7-1 at 3.) Defendant requested 

an extension of time do to “a heavy workload.” (Doc. 21 at 1.) The Court granted the request on 

March 26, 2015, and ordered Defendant to “file a response to Plaintiff’s opening brief on or before 

April 22, 2015.” (Doc. 22 at 2.) However, Defendant has failed to file a response in accordance with 

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 

including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may impose sanctions based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or 

ROBERT ZAMORA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00197 - JLT

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS 

SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR 

DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 

THE COURT’S ORDER 

Case 1:14-cv-00197-JLT Document 23 Filed 04/27/15 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

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) (imposing sanctions for failure to comply with an order); Malone 

v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing sanctions for failure to comply 

with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (imposing sanctions

for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED to show cause within seven days of the date of service 

of this Order why sanctions should not be imposed for failure comply the Court’s Order or to file a 

response to Plaintiff’s opening brief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00197-JLT Document 23 Filed 04/27/15 Page 2 of 2