(SS) Clark v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

SARINA ELAINE CLARK, No. 1:19-cv-01587-GSA

Plaintiff, v. CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social WITH COURT ORDER Security, Defendant. Doc. 11

Paragraph 3 of the Scheduling Order (Doc. 5) provides that within thirty (30) days after service of the administrative record Plaintiff shall serve Defendant with a confidential letter brief and shall file with the Court a separate proof of service of the confidential letter brief. Although the administrative record in this case was filed with the Court on March 25, 2020 (Doc. 10), Plaintiff has not filed proof that a confidential letter brief was served on Defendant within thirty days thereafter. On May 11, 2020, the Court directed Plaintiff to file such proof of service within ten days. Doc. 11. Plaintiff did not timely file a proof of service or any other document with the Court. /// Rule 110 of this Court’s Local Rules provides that the “failure of counsel or of a party to comply … 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.” This Court has the inherent power to manage its docket. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). Given the above, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file a written response to this Order to Show Cause within TEN (10) DAYS of the date of this Order explaining why she has not filed proof of service of a confidential letter brief in accordance with the provisions of the Scheduling Order (Doc. 5). In the alternative, Plaintiff may file the proof of service of the Confidential Letter Brief within TEN (10) DAYS of the date of this order. Failure of Plaintiff to respond to this Order to Show Cause within the time specified may result in dismissal of the case.

Dated: May 27, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE