Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Collins v. Astrue

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 17, 2009

BILLY COLLINS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER FOLLOWING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING REQUIRING PLAINTIFF'S PERSONAL APPEARANCE (Doc. 24) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE/ OPENING BRIEF

This matter came on regularly for hearing on an order to show cause requiring plaintiff to personally appear and show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to file an opening brief, failure to comply with a court order, and for lack of prosecution. Pro se plaintiff, Billy Collins, did NOT appear or otherwise contact the Court. Assistant United States Attorney Benjamin E. Hall contacted court staff on April 16, 2009, advising that he could not and would not be attending the hearing due to a family matter. Shey Bond, filling in for Elizabeth Firer, Office of the General Counsel, also contacted court staff on April 16, 2009, advising that she would not be attending the hearing, but provided her cellular phone number if the Court so desired to contact her, which was not necessary due to plaintiff's non-appearance.

But for pro se plaintiff's ex-counsel of record's response to the order to show cause (Doc. 25); counsel's inadvertent failure to serve the administrative record on pro se plaintiff upon the granting of counsel's motion to withdraw (Doc. 22); and, therefore, counsel's further request to grant plaintiff additional time to file his opening brief, plaintiff is GRANTED until May 29, 2009, to file his opening brief, with or without the assistance of counsel, or plaintiff's case will be dismissed outright.

Plaintiff is warned that a failure to comply with an order of the Court may result in sanctions, including dismissal, pursuant to the inherent power of the Court or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), 11; Local Rule 11-110; Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 31, 42-43 (1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090417

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.