Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00709/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00709-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Christine J. Smith
Plaintiff

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTINE J. SMITH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-0709 EFB

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant. 

 /

Plaintiff filed a complaint and a motion to proceed in this action in forma pauperis on

March 13, 2009. Dckt. Nos. 1, 2. On April 15, 2009, this court granted plaintiff’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis and issued a scheduling order setting forth, inter alia, a deadline by

which defendant was required to file the administrative transcript and an answer or other

response to plaintiff’s complaint, and a deadline by which plaintiff was required to file a motion

for summary judgment and/or remand (within forty-five days after being served with the

administrative record). Dckt. Nos. 6, 7. The scheduling order further provided that “[f]ailure to

comply with any portion of this schedule may result in sanctions, including striking a motion

from calendar, or striking the complaint or answer.” Dckt. No. 7 at 3. On September 11, 2009,

defendant filed the administrative transcript and an answer to plaintiff’s complaint, and on

September 15, 2009, served a copy of the administrative transcript on plaintiff, making

Case 2:09-cv-00709-EFB Document 21 Filed 02/25/10 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

1

 Given the length of time since defendant’s answer and the administrative transcript were

filed, the court is not inclined to grant an extension of this deadline absent a showing of substantial

cause.

2

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and/or remand due on or before October 29, 2009. 

Dckt. Nos. 13, 14. 

On October 29, 2009, the parties filed a stipulation to extend the deadline for plaintiff’s

summary judgment motion to January 8, 2010. Dckt. No. 17. On November 2, 2009, the

undersigned approved the parties’ stipulation and granted plaintiff the requested extension. 

Dckt. No. 18. On January 8, 2010, the parties again filed a stipulation to extend the deadline for

plaintiff’s summary judgment motion from January 8, 2010 to February 11, 2010. Dckt. No. 19. 

On January 12, 2010, the undersigned reluctantly approved the stipulation. Dckt. No. 20. 

The court’s docket reveals that plaintiff has not filed a motion for summary judgment

and/or remand, and has not otherwise communicated with the court since submitting the January

8, 2010 stipulation. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show cause in writing on or before

March 26, 2010, why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution and why plaintiff

and/or plaintiff’s counsel should not be monetarily sanctioned for failure to comply with court

orders. See L.R. 110 (providing that failure to comply with the Local Rules or a court order

“may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or

Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.”). Plaintiff shall also file a motion for summary

judgment and/or remand on or before March 26, 2010.1

 Failure to timely file the required

writings may result in dismissal and the imposition of monetary sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(b). If plaintiff and/or plaintiff’s counsel wishes to be heard on the sanctions issue, they shall

so indicate in the written response to this order to show cause. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 25, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00709-EFB Document 21 Filed 02/25/10 Page 2 of 2