Bey v. Nevada Power Company

Opinion

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 *** ARAH MUABA BEY, 8 Case No. 2:22-cv-01661-CDS-VCF Plaintiff, 9 vs. ORDER 10 NEVADA POWER COMPANY, et al., APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 11 Defendants. (EFC NO. 11)

I previously denied pro se plaintiff Arah Muaba Bey’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 13 14 (IFP) without prejudice. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff’s IFP application was incomplete, and I also found that 15 plaintiff provided evasive answers that indicated that he was concealing assets. Id. I ordered him to 16 either file a long form IFP application or pay the filing fee. Id. Plaintiff objected to my order. ECF No. 17 5. Judge Silva overruled plaintiff’s objection and ordered Bey to comply with my order. Plaintiff has 18 now appealed Judge Silva’s decision to the Ninth Circuit. See ECF Nos. 8, 9, and 10. Plaintiff has now 19 filed an affidavit in lieu of IFP long form, which he attached to a blank long form application. ECF No. 20 11. Since this exact issue is being appealed, I deny Bey’s IFP application without prejudice, pending his 21 appeal. Once the Ninth Circuit has issued an order on Bey’s appeal, plaintiff has thirty days to refile an 22 updated long form IFP application. 23 ACCORDINGLY, 24 I ORDER that plaintiff Bey’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 11) is DENIED 25 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. I FURTHER ORDER that plaintiff Bey may refile his long form IFP application, if appropriate,

5 within 30 days after his appeal to the Ninth Circuit is complete. 3 NOTICE 4 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 5 || recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 6 || of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 7 |) may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 8 time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file ° objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, plaintiffs must immediately file written

4 notification with the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon

15 each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel.

|| Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 DATED this 28"" day of November 2022. Lod acto. 19 Joa CAM FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25