ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Teresa Marie Shaban ("Plaintiff") seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner" or "Defendant") denying her application for disability benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act. On January 29, 2019, the Court issued a scheduling order. (ECF No. 5). The scheduling order states that within thirty days of service of Defendant's response to the appellant letter brief Plaintiff's opening brief shall be filed. (ECF No. 5-1 at 3.) Defendant served the responsive brief on August 19, 2019. (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 Plaintiff shall file a written response to this order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute within seven (7) days of the date of service of this 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.