(SS) Thor v. Commissioner of Social Security

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHA XHONG THOR, No. 1:19-cv-00503-GSA Plaintiff, 11 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY v. JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED FOR PLAINTIFF AND ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social THE CASE REMANDED FOR Security, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS Defendant.

Doc. 23 The certified administrative record in the above-captioned case omits evidence and documents necessary for the Court to conclude that Plaintiff’s 2015 application for benefits was considered in compliance with applicable law, as well that Plaintiff was provided due process of law. As a result, the Court is unable to determine whether Defendant’s denial of Plaintiff’s 2015 application for supplemental security income complied with applicable law.

On May 11, 2020, the Court issued an Order Directing Defendant to Provide Additional Procedural Information and to Supplement the Certified Administrative Record as Required.

Doc. 23. The order required Defendant to respond within thirty days. Although more than thirty days have elapsed Defendant has neither complied with the order, requested additional time to comply with the order, nor responded to the order in any other way.

1 Rule 110 of this Court’s Local Rules provides that the “failure of counsel or of a party to comply … 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.” This Court has the inherent power to manage its docket. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).

Given the above, Defendant is hereby ORDERED to file a written response to this Order to Show Cause within FIFTEEN (15) DAYS of the date of this Order, explaining why he has not complied with the Court’s order of May 11, 2020. Doc. 5. In the alternative, Plaintiff may file within fifteen (15) days of the date of this order a detailed explanation of the procedure followed in the sequential denials (initial, reconsideration and hearing decision) of Plaintiff’s 2015 application for supplemental security income, as well as all any additional documents relating to the procedural analysis of Plaintiff’s application for benefits.

Failure of Plaintiff to respond to this Order to Show Cause within the time specified may result in entry of judgment for Plaintiff and remand of the case for consideration in compliance with applicable procedural law and regulations.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 16, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE