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.

Amelia Suarez, Plaintiff v. Carolyn W. Colvin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 19, 2013

AMELIA SUAREZ, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER

Amelia Suarez ("Plaintiff") seeks to proceed in forma pauperis with an action seeking judicial review of a determination of the Social Security Administration. On February 21, 2013, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, noting that "from the face of Plaintiff's complaint, it does not appear the Court has jurisdiction over the matter." (Doc. 5 at 4-5). Plaintiff was granted twenty-one days from the date of service, or until March 14, 2013 to file an amended complaint. To date, Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court's order.

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: "Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court." Local Rule 110. "District courts have inherent power to control their dockets," and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 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 or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for her failure comply with the Court's order, or 9 in the alternative, to file an amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20130319

© 1992-2013 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.