Filed: Feb. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 20, 2019
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO FILE OPENING BRIEF GARY S. AUSTIN , Magistrate Judge . Following the exchange of confidential letter briefs, the scheduling order required Plaintiff Ismael Munoz Ferrer to file an opening brief in the above-entitled case on or before January 7, 2019. Doc. 4. On January 14, 2019, Plaintiff and the Commissioner stipulated to an extension of time for Plaintiff's filing of his opening brief and provided that the opening brief was to have be filed F
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO FILE OPENING BRIEF GARY S. AUSTIN , Magistrate Judge . Following the exchange of confidential letter briefs, the scheduling order required Plaintiff Ismael Munoz Ferrer to file an opening brief in the above-entitled case on or before January 7, 2019. Doc. 4. On January 14, 2019, Plaintiff and the Commissioner stipulated to an extension of time for Plaintiff's filing of his opening brief and provided that the opening brief was to have be filed Fe..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO FILE OPENING BRIEF
GARY S. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.
Following the exchange of confidential letter briefs, the scheduling order required Plaintiff Ismael Munoz Ferrer to file an opening brief in the above-entitled case on or before January 7, 2019. Doc. 4. On January 14, 2019, Plaintiff and the Commissioner stipulated to an extension of time for Plaintiff's filing of his opening brief and provided that the opening brief was to have be filed February 5, 2019. Doc. 17. Although over fourteen days have elapsed since the date on which the parties stipulated that the opening brief was to be filed, Plaintiff has neither filed an opening brief nor requested an additional extension of time.
Rule 110 of this Court's Local Rules provides that the "failure of counsel or of a party to comply . . . 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." This Court has the inherent power to manage its docket. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 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, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
Given the above, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file a written response to this Order to Show Cause WITHIN twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, explaining why she has not filed an opening brief in accordance with the stipulated extension of time (Doc. 16). In the alternative, Plaintiff may file an opening brief within twenty (20) days of the date of this order. No further extensions of time will be granted.
Failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause within the time specified will result in dismissal of this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
