Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00272/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00272-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
William Joseph Finley
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

William Finley initiated this action by filing a complaint on February 26, 2016, seeking judicial 

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

26, 2016, the Court entered its Scheduling Order, setting forth the applicable deadlines. (Doc. 3) 

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, Plaintiff served his confidential letter brief upon Defendant and filed 

a proof of service on August 25, 2016. (Doc. 13) 

Within thirty-five days of the date of service of Plaintiff’s confidential letter brief, Defendant 

was to serve a response upon Plaintiff. (Doc. 3 at 2) In addition, Defendant was ordered to file “[a] 

separate proof of service reflecting that the response was served.” (Id.) Accordingly, Defendant was 

to serve Plaintiff a response to the letter brief and file proof of service no later than September 29, 

2016. (See id.) To date, no proof of service has been filed, and Defendant has not requested an 

extension of time to comply with the Court’s order. 

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 

WILLIAM JOSEPH FINLEY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-0272 - JLT 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS 

SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR 

DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 

THE COURT’S ORDER

Case 1:16-cv-00272-JLT Document 14 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

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, Defendant is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of 

service of this order why the action sanctions should not be imposed for failure to follow the Court’s 

order, or to serve a response to Plaintiff’s confidential letter brief and file proof of service with the 

Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00272-JLT Document 14 Filed 11/01/16 Page 2 of 2