ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE FIVE DAY DEADLINE

STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.

On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed the present action in this court seeking review of the Commissioner's denial of an application for benefits. On April 18, 2017, the Court issued a scheduling order. (ECF No. 5.) The scheduling order states that within 95 days from the filing of the administrative record, Plaintiff shall file an opening brief. Defendant lodged the Social Security administrative record on September 12, 2017. (ECF No. 10.) On December 27, 2017, an order was filed granting the parties' stipulation extending time for Plaintiff to file her opening brief. (ECF No. 14.) Pursuant to the December 27, 2017 order, Plaintiff's opening brief was to be filed on or before January 17, 2018. Plaintiff did not file an opening brief in compliance with the December 27, 2017 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 Plaintiff shall file a written response to this order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute within five (5) days of the date of service of this order. Failure to comply with this order to show cause shall result in this action being dismissed for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.