(SS) Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 CARLA JACKSON, Case No. 1:24-cv-01565-SAB

11 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS 12 v. SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO FILE OPENING BRIEF 13 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, FIVE DAY DEADLINE 14 Defendant.

15 16 On December 19, 2024, Plaintiff Carla Jackson filed this action seeking judicial review 17 of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying an 18 application for disability benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1.) On 19 December 20, 2024, the Court issued a scheduling order. (ECF No. 5.) Pursuant to the 20 scheduling order, Plaintiff’s opening brief was due 30 days after the filing of the administrative 21 record. (Id. at 2.) The administrative record was lodged on February 18, 2025 (ECF No. 11); 22 thus, Plaintiff’s opening brief was due by March 20, 2025. However, neither an opening brief 23 nor request for extension of time have been submitted. 24 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 25 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 26 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 27 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 1 | 2000). 2 Plaintiff's failure to timely file the opening brief, or seek an extension to do so, 3 | constitutes a failure to comply with the Court’s order. Accordingly, Plaintiff will be directed to 4 | show cause why sanctions should not issue for failure to file the opening brief in compliance 5 | with the Court’s December 20, 2024 scheduling order. 6 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within five (5) days of entry of 7 | this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why sanctions should not issue for the failure to 8 | comply with the Court’s scheduling order (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff is advised that filing an opening 9 | brief without showing cause in writing why sanctions should not issue is an insufficient response 10 | to this order. Failure to comply with this order will result in the imposition of sanctions up to 11 | and including dismissal of this action. 12 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 14 | Dated: _ March 21, 2025 STANLEY A. BOONE 15 United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28