(SS) John v. Commissioner of Social Security

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JAMIE RACHELLE JOHN, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-1148- JLT ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE ) WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. ) ) DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) THE COURT’S ORDER AND FAILURE TO ) PROSECUTE 15 Defendant. ) )

17 Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the decision to deny her application for Social Security benefits. (Doc. 1) On March 9, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve a confidential letter brief upon the Commissioner of Social Security within thirty days, and to file a proof of service with the Court.

20 (Doc. 15 at 2) Thus, Plaintiff was to serve the brief and file a proof of service no later than April 13, 2- 2-. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service, and did not request an extension of time to comply with the deadline.

23 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).

6 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of service of this order why terminating sanctions should not be imposed for 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.

11 IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dated: April 21, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE