Kelly v. Astrue

Full title: VICKY LYNNE KELLY, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 27, 2012

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00738-LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2012)

Opinion

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00738-LJO-SKO

03-27-2012

VICKY LYNNE KELLY, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

Sheila K. Oberto

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR FILE A

RESPONSIVE BRIEF

On January 6, 2012, the parties submitted a stipulation requesting that parties be granted an extension of time to file their respective briefs. (Doc. 15.) On January 9, 2012, the Court granted the parties request and issued an order that Plaintiff Vicky Lynne Kelly's ("Plaintiff") opening brief was due on or before February 20, 2012, that Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's ("Commissioner") brief was due on or before March 21, 2012, and that Plaintiff may file a reply brief on or before April 5, 2012. (Doc. 16.) Plaintiff filed an opening brief on February 7, 2012. (Doc. 17.) The Commissioner, however, failed to file a responsive brief within the extended time.

"District courts have inherent power to control their dockets and may impose sanctions, including dismissal, in the exercise of that discretion." Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 398 (9th Cir. 1998) (emphasis omitted) (holding that court may dismiss an action that abuses the judicial process using inherent powers to control dockets); see also Frost v. Perry, 919 F. Supp. 1459 (D. Nev. 1996) (untimely motion stricken by court using inherent powers to control its own docket). The Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Rule 110 provides that the "[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 authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court."

As such, by April 2, 2012, the Commissioner is ordered to: (1) SHOW CAUSE as to why a timely responsive brief was not filed, or (2) file a responsive brief. If the Commissioner fails to either show cause or file a responsive brief within five (5) days of the date of this order, this case shall be deemed submitted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. By April 2, 2012, the Commissioner shall EITHER:

(a) File a statement SHOWING CAUSE as to why the responsive brief was not timely filed; or
(b) File a RESPONSIVE BRIEF; and

2. If the Commissioner fails to show cause or file a responsive brief, the case shall be deemed submitted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE