(SS) Adney v. Commissioner of Social Security

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOEY ADNEY, Case No. 1:19-cv-00191-LJO-SAB 13 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 14 v. SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, FIVE DAY DEADLINE Defendant.

19 On February 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed the present action in this court seeking review of the Commissioner’s denial of an application for benefits. On September 24, 2019, an order issued granting the parties stipulation for an extension of time for Plaintiff to file an opening brief.

22 Pursuant to the order, Plaintiff’s opening brief was due on October 28, 2019. The deadline has passed and Plaintiff did not file his opening brief.

24 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).

2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff SHALL SHOW CAUSE IN | WRITING why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute within five (5) days of | the date of service of this order. Failure to comply with this order to show cause shall result in || the recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Se g | Dated: _October 29, 2019 _ _ 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE