Susanne Green v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 SUSANNE GREEN, Case No. 1:26-cv-01779-CDB (SS)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO 13 v. PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, (Doc. 10) 15 Defendant. 14-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 Plaintiff Susanne Green (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se, seeks judicial review of a final 18 decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner” or “Defendant”) denying her 19 application for disability benefits under the Social Security Act. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff did not pay 20 the filing fee and, instead, applied to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 21 1915. (Doc. 3). 22 On March 6, 2026, the Court issued an order noting that Plaintiff’s IFP application 23 demonstrates that her income and resources could be above the poverty threshold and the 24 information provided in her IFP application was insufficient for the Court to determine whether 25 Plaintiff is entitled to proceed without prepayment of fees. (Doc. 10 at 1). The Court directed 26 Plaintiff to file an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long 27 Form)—AO 239 within 21 days of entry of the order. Id. at 2. As of the date of this order, ] The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 2 | “[flailure of counsel or of a party to comply with ... any order of the Court may be grounds for 3 imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions ... within the inherent power of the Court.” Local 4 |Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising that 5 | power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City 6 | of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 7 |party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 8 | Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with 9 |a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th 10 | Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 11 | 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 12 Conclusion and Order 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause in writing, within 14 | 14 days of the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to 15 comply with the Court’s orders. Plaintiff may comply with this order, in the alternative, by filing 16 | the Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form)—AO 17 by that same date. 18 Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be 19 | dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to obey the Court’s orders. 20 [T IS SO ORDERED. 71! Dated: _ March 31, 2026 | Wr bY 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28