Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00291/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00291-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Jeremiah Valenzuela
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEREMIAH VALENZUELA,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00291-SAB

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO 

SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 

TEN DAY DEADLINE

On January 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed this action seeking judicial review of a final decision 

of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his application for disability benefits pursuant to 

the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1.) On February 26, 2015, the Court issued a scheduling 

order. (ECF No. 6.) The scheduling order provides that “Within one hundred twenty (120) days 

after service of the complaint, respondent shall serve a copy of the administrative record on 

appellant and file it with the court.” (ECF No. 6 at ¶ 2.) The scheduling order also provides that:

Within thirty (30) days after service of the administrative record, 

appellant shall serve on respondent a letter brief outlining the 

reasons why he/she contends that a remand is warranted. The 

letter brief shall succinctly set forth the relevant issues and reasons 

for the remand. The letter brief itself shall NOT be field with the 

court and it shall be marked “confidential.” A separate proof of 

service reflecting that the letter brief was served on respondent 

shall be filed with the court.

(Id. at ¶ 3). 

Plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the scheduling order or of the federal or 

Case 1:15-cv-00291-SAB Document 21 Filed 12/07/15 Page 1 of 3
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

2

local rules of procedure could result in the issuance of sanctions pursuant to Local Rule 110. (Id.

at ¶ 15.) 

On October 1, 2015, Defendant lodged the administrative record. (ECF No. 15.) 

Therefore, pursuant to the scheduling order, Plaintiff was required to serve his confidential letter 

brief on or before October 31, 2015. On November 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a stipulation to 

extend the time to and including December 1, 2015, for Plaintiff to serve his letter brief on

Defendant. (ECF No. 16.) On December 1, 2015, the Court entered an order pursuant to the 

November 13, 2015 stipulation, and ordered that Plaintiff serve his letter brief on Defendant on 

or before December 1, 2015. (ECF No. 17.) On December 3, 2015, Defendant filed a notice of 

non-receipt of Plaintiff’s letter brief. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff has not filed a response to 

Defendant’s December 3, 2015 notice of non-receipt of the confidential letter brief. 

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 

sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 

control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 

including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 

2000). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a written response to 

this order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute within 

ten (10) days of the date of service of this order. Failure to comply with this order to show cause 

shall result in this action being dismissed for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00291-SAB Document 21 Filed 12/07/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Case 1:15-cv-00291-SAB Document 21 Filed 12/07/15 Page 3 of 3