(SS) Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security

E.D. California

(SS) Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California·Decided September 12, 2019·No. 1:19-cv-00067·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL T. TORRES, Case No. 1:19-cv-00067-SAB

Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY v. MONETARY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH

Defendant. FIVE-DAY DEADLINE

(ECF No. 16)

Plaintiff Michael T. Torres (“Plaintiff”) filed this action seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner” or “Defendant”) denying his application for disability benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act. On September 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file his opening brief, requesting the deadline be extended thirty (30) days. On September 3, 2019, the Court ordered Defendant to either file an opposition to the motion for an extension of time or a statement of non-opposition within five days of entry of the order. (ECF No. 16.) The deadline has now passed, and Defendant has failed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition as required by the Court’s September 3, 2019 order. Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or 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.” The Court has the inherent power to 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. 2000). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendant shall show cause in writing within five (5) days of the date of entry of this order why monetary sanctions should not issue for the failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition as required by the Court’s September 3, 2019 order; 2. Failure to comply with this order will result in the issuance of sanctions. IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee Dated: _ September 12, 2019

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

MICHAEL T. TORRES, Case No. 1:19-cv-00067-SAB

Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY v. MONETARY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH

Defendant. FIVE-DAY DEADLINE

(ECF No. 16)

Plaintiff Michael T. Torres (“Plaintiff”) filed this action seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner” or “Defendant”) denying his application for disability benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act. On September 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file his opening brief, requesting the deadline be extended thirty (30) days. On September 3, 2019, the Court ordered Defendant to either file an opposition to the motion for an extension of time or a statement of non-opposition within five days of entry of the order. (ECF No. 16.) The deadline has now passed, and Defendant has failed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition as required by the Court’s September 3, 2019 order. Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or 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.” The Court has the inherent power to 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. 2000). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendant shall show cause in writing within five (5) days of the date of entry of this order why monetary sanctions should not issue for the failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition as required by the Court’s September 3, 2019 order; 2. Failure to comply with this order will result in the issuance of sanctions. IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee Dated: _ September 12, 2019

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

(SS) Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D. Cal. 2019).

Pincite

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

Opinion

Related