IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 30, 2010
VY NORNG, PLAINTIFF,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPENING BRIEF OR SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS, INCLUDING THE SANCTION OF DISMISSAL, SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SCHEDULING ORDER
On August 26,2009, the Court issued its Scheduling Order outlining when the briefs in this matter would be filed. (Doc. 7) The scheduling order explains that the failure to comply with its provisions may result in sanctions pursuant to Local Rule 110. (Doc. 7 at 4.)
According to the Scheduling Order, Plaintiff's brief was due no later than 95 days after the filing of the administrative record. (Doc. 7 at 2) The administrative record was filed on January 8, 2010 (Doc. 12), making Plaintiff's brief due no later than April 13, 2010. However, Plaintiff has failed to file a brief or seek an extension of time in which to do so.
Therefore, Plaintiff shall have until August 13, 2010 to file an Opening Brief or show cause why sanctions, up to and including dismissal of the action, should not be imposed. Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this action pursuant to the inherent power of the Court or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), 11; Local Rule 110; Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 31, 42-43 (1991).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have until August 13, 2010, to file an Opening Brief that complies with paragraph 11 of the Court's Scheduling Order of August 26, 2009 (Doc. 7) or, in lieu thereof show cause why sanctions, up to and including dismissal of the action, should not be imposed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.