Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01233/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01233-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Carrol J. Ruiz
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

CARROL J. RUIZ, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, )

Commissioner of Social )

Security, ) 

 )

Defendant. )

)

 )

1:07-CV-01233-SMS 

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE

IN WRITING WHY THE ACTION SHOULD

NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE BY FILING AN

OPENING BRIEF AND FAILURE TO

COMPLY WITH AN ORDER OF THE COURT

(DOC. 6)

Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the

Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) denying an

application for benefits. The parties have consented to the

jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), and the matter has been assigned to the

Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings in this case,

including entry of final judgment.

Plaintiff filed her complaint on August 21, 2007; on August

24, 2007, the Court served Plaintiff with a scheduling order in

which the Court ordered that Plaintiff’s opening brief was due

Case 1:07-cv-01233-SMS Document 15 Filed 05/20/08 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

27

28

2

ninety-five days after the date of the filing of the

administrative record, which was deemed to be the Defendant’s

answer to the complaint. The administrative record was filed on

January 15, 2008; thus, Plaintiff’s brief was due on or about

April 20, 2008. However, a month has passed since the due date,

but no brief has been filed; further, no request for an extension

of time has been filed.

A failure to comply with an order of the Court may result in

sanctions, including monetary sanctions, as well as dismissal,

pursuant to the inherent power of the Court and the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), 11; Local Rule 11-110;

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 31, 42-43 (1991).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within fifteen (15) days of the date of service of this

order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this action

should not be dismissed for failure to file a timely opening

brief pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order and for failure to

obey the Court’s order; Plaintiff shall show cause in writing

because the Court has determined that at this point no hearing is

necessary; and

2. Plaintiff is informed that the failure to respond to this

order will result in a recommendation that the action be

dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01233-SMS Document 15 Filed 05/20/08 Page 2 of 2