Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00869/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00869-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Michael Anthony Cordova
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

Plaintiff Michael Anthony Cordova seeks judicial review of the administrative decision to deny 

his application for benefits arising under the Social Security Act. (Doc. 1) On July 1, 2015, the Court 

dismissed the complaint to give Plaintiff to “allege facts that indicate the Court has jurisdiction over the 

matter.” (Doc. 5 at 4) Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint within twenty-one days of the 

date of service. (Id.) 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 

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 

MICHAEL ANTHONY CORDOVA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00869 - 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-00869-LJO-JLT Document 6 Filed 07/29/15 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

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, 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 comply with the Court’s order, or 

in the alternative, to file an amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00869-LJO-JLT Document 6 Filed 07/29/15 Page 2 of 2