Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01794/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01794-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Deborah Jean Wilburn
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 Deborah Jean Wilburn initiated this action for judicial review of the administrative 

decision denying her application for Social Security benefits by filing a complaint and a motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis on November 30, 2015. (Docs. 1, 2) The Court may authorize the 

commencement of an action without prepayment of fees “by a person who submits an affidavit that 

includes a statement of all assets such person . . . possesses [and] that the person is unable to pay such 

fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

The Court reviewed Plaintiff’s application and found the information provided was insufficient 

to determine whether Plaintiff satisfies the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff 

was ordered to file an amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3 at 2) In addition, the 

Court cautioned Plaintiff that “failure to comply with this order may result in denial of her application 

to proceed in forma pauperis.” (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to or otherwise comply 

with the Court’s order.

DEBORAH JEAN WILBURN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01794 - JLT 

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED AND 

HER APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS SHOULD NOT BE DENIED FOR 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S 

ORDER

Case 1:15-cv-01794-JLT Document 4 Filed 01/07/16 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

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 

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 14 days of the date of service of 

this Order why sanctions should not be imposed for her failure to comply with the Court’s order or to 

file an amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01794-JLT Document 4 Filed 01/07/16 Page 2 of 2