(SS)(PS) Vis v. Commissioner of Social Security

E.D. California

(SS)(PS) Vis v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California·Decided September 8, 2022·No. 2:21-cv-00009·Unknown

Opinion

KRISTOPHER VIS, Case No. 2:21-cv-00009-JDP (SS) Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED v. FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ECF Nos. 10 & 11 Defendant.

On June 30, 2022, defendant filed a motion to dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state claim. ECF No. 11. Under the court’s scheduling order, plaintiff was required to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion by July 14, 2022. To date, he has responded to defendant’s motion. To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. The court will give plaintiff the opportunity to explain why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion. Plaintiffs failure to respond to this order will constitute another failure to comply with a court order and will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Within fourteen days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss. 2. Within fourteen days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion. 3. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any, within seven days of the date the opposition is filed. 4. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to comply with local rules. ( q oy — Dated: _ September 8, 2022 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

KRISTOPHER VIS, Case No. 2:21-cv-00009-JDP (SS) Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED v. FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ECF Nos. 10 & 11 Defendant.

On June 30, 2022, defendant filed a motion to dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state claim. ECF No. 11. Under the court’s scheduling order, plaintiff was required to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion by July 14, 2022. To date, he has responded to defendant’s motion. To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. The court will give plaintiff the opportunity to explain why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion. Plaintiffs failure to respond to this order will constitute another failure to comply with a court order and will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Within fourteen days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss. 2. Within fourteen days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion. 3. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any, within seven days of the date the opposition is filed. 4. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to comply with local rules. ( q oy — Dated: _ September 8, 2022 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

(SS)(PS) Vis v. Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

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

Opinion

Related