Carrillo v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
15
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE, Show Cause Response due by 4/16/2010 - signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/31/2010. (Leon-Guerrero, A)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 v. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Leonard Carillo ("Plaintiff") seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his application for Disability Insurance benefits pursuant to Title II and Supplemental Security Income benefits pursuant to Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), and the matter has been assigned to the Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including entry of final judgment. Plaintiff filed his complaint on May 21, 2009. On May 22, 2009, the Court served Plaintiff with a scheduling order in which the Court ordered that Plaintiff's opening brief was due 95 days after the date of the filing of the administrative record, which was deemed to be the defendant's answer to the complaint. The administrative record was filed on September 30, 1 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. LEONARD CARILLO, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:09-cv-00904-JLT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE BY FILING AN OPENING BRIEF AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SCHEDULING ORDER OF THE COURT (Doc. 5)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
2009; thus, Plaintiff's opening brief was due January 4, 2010. However, nearly three months have passed since the due date, but no brief has been filed. Further, no request for an extension of time has been filed. A failure to comply with an order of the Court may result in sanctions, including dismissal, pursuant to the inherent power of the Court or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), 11; Local Rule 110; Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 31, 42-43 (1991). Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Within fifteen (15) days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for failure to file a timely opening brief pursuant to the Court's scheduling order and for failure to obey the Court's order; Plaintiff shall show cause in writing because the Court has determined that no hearing is necessary; and 2. Plaintiff is informed that the failure to file a timely response to this order will result in dismissal of this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 31, 2010 9j7khi /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
