Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01138/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01138-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Robert Wojtowicz
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

Robert Wojtowicz initiated this action by filing a complaint on August 19, 2019, seeking 

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

September 3, 2019, the Court issued its Scheduling Order, setting forth the deadlines governing the 

action. (Doc. 7) 

The Commissioner of Social Security filed the certified administrative record in the matter on 

January 6, 2020. (Doc. 12) Pursuant to the terms of the Scheduling Order, within thirty days of the 

filing of the administrative record, Plaintiff was to serve “a letter brief outlining the reasons why he ...

contends that a remand is warranted,” and file “proof of service reflecting that the letter brief was 

served.” (Doc. 7-1 at 2) However, the parties stipulated for Plaintiff to have an extension of time to 

serve the letter brief. (Doc. 13) Based upon this stipulation, Plaintiff was ordered to “serve his letter 

brief no later than March 6, 2020.” (Doc. 14 at 1, emphasis omitted) To date, Plaintiff has not filed a 

proof of service indicating his compliance with the Court’s order.

ROBERT WOJTOWICZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-1138 - JLT 

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE 

WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 

THE COURT’S ORDER AND FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

Case 1:19-cv-01138-JLT Document 15 Filed 03/10/20 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); 

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, within 14 days, Plaintiff SHALL show cause why terminating sanctions should 

not be imposed for his failure to follow the Court’s order and failure to prosecute the action or to serve 

a confidential letter brief and file proof of service with the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01138-JLT Document 15 Filed 03/10/20 Page 2 of 2