Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Real v. Berryhill, 1:17-cv-01234-SKO. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180606977 Visitors: 2
Filed: Jun. 05, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 05, 2018
Summary: ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF FILE A WRITTEN STATEMENT SHOWING CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED OR THAT PLAINTIFF FILE AN OPENING BRIEF (Doc. 13) SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . On September 14, 2017, Plaintiff, represented by counsel and proceeding in forma pauperis, filed the present action in this Court. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff seeks review of the Commissioner's denial of his application for benefits. ( See id. ) Pursuant to the "Stipulation Extending Briefing Schedule" (the "Stipulati
More

ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF FILE A WRITTEN STATEMENT SHOWING CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED OR THAT PLAINTIFF FILE AN OPENING BRIEF (Doc. 13)

On September 14, 2017, Plaintiff, represented by counsel and proceeding in forma pauperis, filed the present action in this Court. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff seeks review of the Commissioner's denial of his application for benefits. (See id.)

Pursuant to the "Stipulation Extending Briefing Schedule" (the "Stipulation"), Plaintiff's Opening Brief was due May 29, 2018.1 (See Doc. 13.) On May 29, 2018, Plaintiff failed to file and serve his Opening Brief with the Court and on opposing counsel, and, to date, no Opening Brief has been filed or served. (See Docket.) Plaintiff is, therefore, ordered to show cause, if any, why the action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Stipulation and for want of prosecution. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file an Opening Brief.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. By no later than June 15, 2018, Plaintiff shall either: a. file a written response to this Order showing cause why the Court should not dismiss this action for failure to comply with the Stipulation and for want of prosecution; or b. file an Opening Brief.

Failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause will result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. The Stipulation was filed pursuant to the Scheduling Order, which permits "a single thirty (30) day extension of any part of this scheduling order by stipulation of the parties" without Court approval. (Doc. 5-1 ¶ 12.)
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer