Saad v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
6
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/16/2011. Show Cause Response due by 7/1/2011. (Leon-Guerrero, A)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DEBORAH A. SAAD,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
15
Defendant.
16
17
) 1:11-cv-00642-JLT
)
) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
) ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Deborah A. Saad (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding in forma pauperis and pro se with an action
18
seeking judicial review of a determination of the Social Security Administration. Plaintiff
19
commenced this action on April 22, 2011. (Doc. 1). On April 28, 2011, the Court granted
20
Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with
21
leave to amend. (Doc. 3). On May 17, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to amend her
22
complaint and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within twenty-one days of the date
23
of service, and to attach a copy of the notice received from the Appeals Council in order for the
24
Court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter. (Doc. 5 at 4). However, to date,
25
Plaintiff has failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s order.
26
The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or
27
of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the
28
Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” LR 110. “District
1
1
courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may
2
impose sanctions including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los
3
Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based
4
on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply
5
with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal
6
for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal
7
Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order);
8
Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute
9
and to comply with local rules).
10
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 21 days of the date of service
11
of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for her failure to prosecute or to follow the
12
Court’s Order or, in the alternative, to file the amended complaint with a copy of the notice from
13
the Appeals Council attached therewith for the Court.
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
Dated: June 16, 2011
9j7khi
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?
