1

2

3

4

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 SHAWN MCKEE, Case No. 1:25-cv-00362-JLT-SAB

10 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS 11 v. SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO FILE OPENING BRIEF 12 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, THREE DAY DEADLINE 13 Defendant.

14 15 On March 27, 2025, Plaintiff initiated this action seeking judicial review of a final 16 decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying an application for 17 disability benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1.) On March 28, 2025, the 18 Court issued a scheduling order. (ECF No. 5.) Pursuant to the scheduling order, Plaintiff’s 19 opening brief was due 30 days after the filing of the administrative record. (Id. at 2.) The 20 administrative record was lodged on May 21, 2025 (ECF No. 10); thus, Plaintiff’s opening brief 21 was due by June 20, 2025. Plaintiff has not filed an opening brief or requested an extension of 22 time to do so. 23 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 24 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 25 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 26 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 27 including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County,

, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). 1 Plaintiff's failure to timely file the opening brief, or seek an extension to do so, 2 | constitutes a failure to comply with the Court’s order. Accordingly, Plaintiff will be directed to 3 | show cause why sanctions should not issue for failure to file the opening brief in compliance 4 | with the Court’s March 28, 2025 scheduling order. 5 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within three (3) days of entry 6 | of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why sanctions should not issue for the failure 7 | to comply with the Court’s scheduling order (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff is advised that filing an 8 | opening brief without showing cause in writing why sanctions should not issue is an insufficient 9 | response to this order. Failure to comply with this order will result in the imposition of sanctions 10 | up to and including recommendation of dismissal of this action. 11 0 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 13 | Dated: _ June 24, 2025 STANLEY A. BOONE 14 United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28