(SS) Razaqi v. Commissioner of Social Security

E.D. California

(SS) Razaqi v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California·Decided May 13, 2021·No. 1:20-cv-01705·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ALI RAZAQI, CASE NUMBER: 1:20-cv-1705-GSA Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY v. THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social PROSECUTE Security,

Defendant.

Pursuant to the scheduling order (Doc. 5), within 20 days thereof Plaintiff was directed to serve on the defendant the summons, complaint, the notice and form of consent to proceed before a magistrate judge (Doc. 5-2), a copy of the scheduling order (Doc. 5), and to file return of service with this Court. Plaintiff was also directed to complete and file the consent/decline form (Doc. 5- 2) by March 8, 2021. On April 12, 2021, the Court entered an order advising Plaintiff that the above deadlines were in effect notwithstanding the entry of the stay, and instructed Plaintiff to file and serve the above documents within 20 days. Doc. 7. Plaintiff did not do so. Pursuant to Local Rule 110, “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 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); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). Accordingly, by May 27, 2021 Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a written response as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file and serve the above referenced documents by May 27, 2021. If no response is filed by May 27, 2021 the Court will enter findings and recommendations to dismiss this action for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 12, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ALI RAZAQI, CASE NUMBER: 1:20-cv-1705-GSA Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY v. THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social PROSECUTE Security,

Defendant.

Pursuant to the scheduling order (Doc. 5), within 20 days thereof Plaintiff was directed to serve on the defendant the summons, complaint, the notice and form of consent to proceed before a magistrate judge (Doc. 5-2), a copy of the scheduling order (Doc. 5), and to file return of service with this Court. Plaintiff was also directed to complete and file the consent/decline form (Doc. 5- 2) by March 8, 2021. On April 12, 2021, the Court entered an order advising Plaintiff that the above deadlines were in effect notwithstanding the entry of the stay, and instructed Plaintiff to file and serve the above documents within 20 days. Doc. 7. Plaintiff did not do so. Pursuant to Local Rule 110, “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 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); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). Accordingly, by May 27, 2021 Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a written response as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file and serve the above referenced documents by May 27, 2021. If no response is filed by May 27, 2021 the Court will enter findings and recommendations to dismiss this action for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 12, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

(SS) Razaqi v. Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

(SS) Razaqi v. Commissioner of Social Security ((SS) Razaqi v. Commissioner of Social Security) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related