ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY MONETARY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER

FIVE-DAY DEADLINE

(ECF No. 16)

STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Michael T. Torres ("Plaintiff") filed this action seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner" or "Defendant") denying his application for disability benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act. On September 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file his opening brief, requesting the deadline be extended thirty (30) days. On September 3, 2019, the Court ordered Defendant to either file an opposition to the motion for an extension of time or a statement of non-opposition within five days of entry of the order. (ECF No. 16.) The deadline has now passed, and Defendant has failed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition as required by the Court's September 3, 2019 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:

IT IS SO ORDERED.