Enrique Franco v. Ryan McCormick, et al.

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 ENRIQUE FRANCO,, Case No. 3:26-cv-00165-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 RYAN MCCORMICK, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Enrique Franco, an inmate in the custody of the Nevada 12 Department of Corrections (“NDOC”), brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 13 1983. (ECF No. 1-1.) Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Craig S. 14 Denney’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4 (“R&R”)), recommending that the 15 Court dismiss the action without prejudice. Plaintiff filed a timely objection. (ECF No. 5 16 (“Objection”).) Considering Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court will sustain the Objection 17 and reject the R&R. 18 Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint and an incomplete application to proceed in forma 19 pauperis (“IFP”) on an outdated form. (ECF Nos. 1-1, 1.) Judge Denney denied the IFP 20 application, directed the Clerk of Court to send an updated IFP application form to Plaintiff, 21 and directed Plaintiff to either pay the full filing fee or complete the IFP application by 22 March 31, 2026. (ECF No. 3.) Judge Denney noted that the action may be dismissed if 23 Plaintiff failed to comply. (Id.) Plaintiff did not file an updated IFP application or pay the 24 filing fee. On June 4, Judge Denney recommended dismissing the action. (ECF No. 4.) 25 On June 6, Plaintiff filed an objection, claiming he did not receive notice of the issue with 26 his IFP application and only discovered the problem upon receiving a copy of the R&R. 27 (ECF No. 5 at 2.) 28 /// 2 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where, as here, 3 a party timely objects to a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court is 4 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 5 recommendation] to which objection is made.” Id. The Court’s review is thus de novo 6 because Plaintiff filed his Objection. 7 Pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than lawyers. See Balistreri v. 8 Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Considering Plaintiff’s timely 9 Objection, the Court will grant Plaintiff additional time to either file an updated IFP 10 application or pay the filing fee. However, the Court reminds Plaintiff that despite his pro 11 se status, he must still comply with procedural rules. See Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 12 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986). This action cannot proceed until Plaintiff either pays the filing 13 fee or completes the IFP application. If Plaintiff does not comply with this Order, the action 14 will be subject to dismissal without prejudice. 15 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 16 4) is rejected. 17 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court send Plaintiff the approved IFP 18 application form for NDOC inmates and the accompanying instructions. 19 It is further ordered that Plaintiff has until July 30 to either pay the full filing fee of 20 $405 or file a complete IFP application on the provided form. 21 22 DATED THIS 30th Day of June 2026

24 ___ MIRANDA M. DU 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28