(SS) Riley v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EMMA RILEY, Case No. 1:21-cv-00420-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS 13 v. SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO FILE OPENING BRIEF COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, FIVE DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendant.

17 On March 15, 2021, Plaintiff Emma Riley filed this action seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying an application for disability benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1.) On April 1, 2022, the Court lifted the stay of this action and ordered that an opening brief be filed within 45 days of the filing of the administrative record. (ECF No. 11.) On June 30, 2022, the Court granted a stipulated extension of the time to file the administrative record until July 21, 2022, and on July 21, 2022, the administrative record was filed. (ECF Nos. 13, 14.) Forty-five (45) days have passed and no opening brief was filed by September 6, 2022.

25 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).

3 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within five (5) days of entry of | this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why she should not be sanctioned for failing to | timely submit an opening brief in this matter, and may submit a request or a stipulation for a | nunc pro tunc extension of time.

8 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA (e_ | Dated: _September 7, 2022 _ ef 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE