Perez v. Dudek, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

1 2 3 7 8 BEATRIZ P.,1 Case No. 25-cv-02608-PHK 9 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 10 v.

SECURITY, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 This is a Social Security appeal filed by Plaintiff Beatriz P. (“Plaintiff”) against the Acting 15 Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 16 405(g). [Dkt. 1]. Defendant has consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge for 17 all purposes, including the entry of a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). [Dkt. 5]. The matter 18 is presently before the Court regarding Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Procedural 19 Order and deadline for filing an opening brief. Plaintiff commenced this action on March 17, 2025, 20 by filing a form Social Security Complaint. [Dkt. 1]. On March 19, 2025, the Clerk issued the 21 Court’s standard Procedural Order for Social Security appeals, setting forth the mandatory schedule 22 and deadlines governing this case. [Dkt. 4]. Among other things, the Procedural Order requires 23 that Plaintiff “must file and serve on the Commissioner a brief for the requested relief within 30 24 days after the answer is filed.” Id. 25

26 1 In actions involving requested review of a decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, the Court generally uses the first name and initial of last name (or just the initials) 27 of the plaintiff in the Court’s public Orders out of an abundance of caution and out of regard for the 1 On May 19, 2025, the Commissioner answered the Complaint by filing a certified copy of 2 the administrative record. [Dkt. 7]. Pursuant to the Procedural Order entered in this case, Plaintiff’s 3 opening brief was therefore due June 18, 2025. See Dkt. 4; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a). 4 On July 10, 2025, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause on Plaintiff as to why Plaintiff 5 had not filed her opening brief. [Dkt. 8]. On July 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed a response to the Order 6 to Show Cause and contemporaneously moved for an extension of time to file the brief. [Dkts. 12 7 and 14]. The Court granted the request to extend the time to file the brief. [Dkt. 13]. Plaintiff’s 8 opening brief was due August 18, 2025. To date, Plaintiff has not filed her opening brief. Nor has 9 Plaintiff sought an extension of the deadline to do so from this Court. 10 The Court has authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) to dismiss an action if 11 a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or fails to comply with Court Orders. See Hells Canyon 12 Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that a 13 court may sua sponte dismiss an action pursuant to Rule 41(b)); see also Link v. Wabash R. Co., 14 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962) (“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action with 15 prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 16 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets 17 and, ‘[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions, including, where appropriate, . . . 18 dismissal of a case.’”). So far, the record demonstrates that Plaintiff here has failed to prosecute 19 this action by failing to file their opening brief, and Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s 20 Procedural Order entered in this case. Accordingly, the Court find and hereby provides NOTICE 21 that Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and comply with the Procedural Order deadline is 22 grounds for the dismissal of this case, in its entirety, in the absence of any justification for that 23 failure. The Court nevertheless exercises its discretion and inherent authority, and in lieu of ordering 24 dismissal of this case at this time, the Court issues this Order to Show Cause. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 26 On or before September 12, 2025, Plaintiff SHALL file a response with the Court which 27 explains and shows cause in writing why the Court should not dismiss this case due to Plaintiff’s 1 opening brief. Instead of a response to this Order which shows cause to explain the failures noted 2 above, Plaintiff may simply file her opening brief in this case on or before September 12, 2025. 3 Such opening brief, if timely filed, will automatically discharge this Order to Show Cause without 4 || the need for Plaintiff to file a separate response to this Order. 5 The Court hereby provides Plaintiff NOTICE that failure to comply with this Order to 6 Show Cause, as directed herein, may result in further negative consequences for this action, up to 7 and including dismissal of this action, in its entirety, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 || 41(b). 10 || Dated: August 27, 2025 11 PETER H. KANG 12 United States Magistrate Judge

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28