Brooks v. Rigney

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 ANTHONY BROOKS, Case No.: 2:23-cv-00982-GMN-NJK

7 Plaintiff, Report and Recommendation 8 v.

9 CURTIS RIGNEY, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 Plaintiff’s address is incorrect. See Docket Nos. 33, 34, 34, 36, 37, 40, 41, 43, 45 (mail 12 returned as undeliverable). “A party, not the district court, bears the burden of keeping the court 13 apprised of any changes in his mailing address.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 14 1988). To that end, the Court’s local rules requires a pro se party to “immediately file with the 15 court written notification of any change of mailing address.” Local Rule IA 3-1. The rule 16 expressly warns that “failure to comply with this rule may result in the dismissal of this action.” 17 Id. 18 On December 12, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a notice of changed address by 19 January 13, 2025. Docket No. 39. Plaintiff failed to do so. See Docket. On January 16, 2025, 20 the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a notice of changed address by January 31, 2025. Docket No. 21 44. Plaintiff, once again, failed to do so. See Docket. The Court’s orders warned Plaintiff that if 22 he “fail[ed] to timely comply with this order, this action will be subject to dismissal without 23 prejudice” and that “failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this case.” Docket 24 Nos. 39 at 1, 44 at 1 (emphasis in the original). 25 Further, in anticipation of the Court’s settlement conference, Plaintiff was twice ordered to 26 submit his settlement statement. Docket Nos. 32, 42. Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s 27 orders. 28 ] Plaintiff has disobeyed the Local Rules and the Court’s orders to update his address, and 2|| further disobeyed the Court’s orders to submit his settlement statement. Plaintiffs failure to update his address, his violation of the Local Rules, and his disobedience of Court orders are 4] abusive litigation practices that have interfered with the Court’s ability to hear this case, delayed 5| litigation, disrupted the Court’s timely management of its docket, wasted judicial resources, and 6] threatened the integrity of the Court’s orders and the orderly administration of justice. Sanctions 7| less drastic than dismissal are unavailable because Plaintiff has refused to comply with the orders 8] of this Court notwithstanding the Court’s warnings that case-dispositive sanctions may be 9] imposed. 10 Accordingly, in light of the circumstances outlined above, the Court RECOMMENDS 11] that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: March 3, 2025 14 Zé re Nan oppe 15 United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 NOTICE 18 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned 19] to this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and 20|| recommendation must file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen 21|| days of being served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 23] F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 25 26 27 28