Filed: Jun. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 20, 2018
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . Josefina Torres De Ayala initiated this action by filing a complaint on June 1, 2018, seeking judicial review of an administrative decision to deny her application for Social Security benefits. (Doc. 4) On June 4, 2018, the Court determined Plaintiff failed allege facts supporting a determination that her reque
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . Josefina Torres De Ayala initiated this action by filing a complaint on June 1, 2018, seeking judicial review of an administrative decision to deny her application for Social Security benefits. (Doc. 4) On June 4, 2018, the Court determined Plaintiff failed allege facts supporting a determination that her reques..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.
Josefina Torres De Ayala initiated this action by filing a complaint on June 1, 2018, seeking judicial review of an administrative decision to deny her application for Social Security benefits. (Doc. 4) On June 4, 2018, the Court determined Plaintiff failed allege facts supporting a determination that her request for review was timely, and that the Court has jurisdiction in this matter. (Doc. 5) Therefore, Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, within fourteen days of the date of service of the Court's order. (Id. at 4-5) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or taken any other action to prosecute this matter.
The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: "Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court." Local Rule 110. "District courts have inherent power to control their dockets," and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party's failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for the failure comply with the Court's order and failure to prosecute or to file an amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
