Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01229/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01229-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Maria Dejesus Ramirez
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

On September 18, 2014, the Court issued a Scheduling Order governing the action. (Doc. 7-1.) 

Plaintiff was ordered to file an opening brief within thirty days of service of Defendant’s response to 

Plaintiff’s confidential letter brief. (Id. at 2.) Defendant served Plaintiff with the response on March 11, 

2015. (Doc. 12.) Accordingly, Plaintiff was to file her opening brief no later than April 10, 2015. To 

date, she has failed to file her opening brief.1

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 

 

1 The Court is aware that Mr. Rosales has begun to miss court-imposed deadlines and has begun to file briefs that fail to 

analyze the evidence submitted below and to properly address the issues raised. See, Zahirides v. Colvin, Case No.: 1:14-

cv-0283 JLT and Walsh v. Commissioner of Social Security, Case. No. 1:13-cv-00991 JLT. Indeed, the brief submitted in 

the Zahirides matter was identical, save for the Plaintiff’s name, as that filed in the Walsh matter. Should this conduct 

continue, the Court will be forced to consider suspending counsel’s ability to practice in this Court.

MARIA DEJESUS RAMIREZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01229 - JLT

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS 

SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S 

ORDER

Case 1:14-cv-01229-JLT Document 13 Filed 05/12/15 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

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 impose sanctions 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) (imposing sanctions for failure to comply with an order); Malone 

v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing sanctions for failure to comply 

with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (imposing sanctions 

for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within seven days of the date of service 

of this Order why sanctions should not be imposed for failure comply the Court’s Order or, in the 

alternative, to file her opening brief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01229-JLT Document 13 Filed 05/12/15 Page 2 of 2