(SS) Madrigal Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRISELDA MADRIGAL GARCIA, Case No. 1:20-cv-01173-SAB

Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION v. SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY, FIVE DAY DEADLINE

Defendant.

On August 19, 2020, Griselda Madrigal Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed the present action in this court seeking review of the Commissioner’s denial of an application for benefits. (ECF No. 1.) The scheduling order issued on August 21, 2020. (ECF No. 5-1.) On January 22, 2021, the administrative transcript was filed. (ECF No. 12.) Pursuant to the scheduling order, Plaintiff’s opening brief was due ninety five days after the filing of the administrative record. (ECF No. 5-1, ¶¶ 3-6.) Here, Plaintiff’s letter brief was served on Feburary 9, 2021. (ECF No. 14.) Pursuant to the deadlines in the scheduling order, Defendant’s letter brief should have been served on or before March 16, 2021, and the opening brief would be have been due by April 15, 2021. The deadline has passed and Plaintiff did not file his opening brief.

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).

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.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le

Dated: _ May 6, 2021

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE