ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO FILE OPENING BRIEF

SEVEN DAY DEADLINE

STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.

On January 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed the present action in this court seeking review of the Commissioner's denial of an application for Social Security benefits. On January 30, 2018, the Court issued a scheduling order. (ECF No. 5). The scheduling order states that within 35 days of service of respondent's response to the confidential briefing, Plaintiff shall file an opening brief. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Defendant served the response to Plaintiff's confidential brief on August 13, 2018. (ECF No. 11.) More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed an opening brief nor sought an extension of time to do so.

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, within seven (7) days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a written response to show cause why sanctions should not issue for Plaintiff's failure to file an opening brief in compliance with the scheduling 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.