Freshwadda v. Boutos

D. Nevada

Freshwadda v. Boutos

DecidedFebruary 5, 2025

Docket2:23-cv-00880

StatusUnknown

This text of Freshwadda v. Boutos (Freshwadda v. Boutos) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Freshwadda v. Boutos, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 R.O. Brooks Freshwadda, Case No. 2:23-cv-00880-CDS-DJA

5 Plaintiff Notice of Intent to Dismiss Under Local Rule 41-1 6 v.

7 Nicholas Boutos, et al.,

8 Defendants

9 10 Plaintiff R.O. Brooks Freshwadda initiated this civil rights action against defendants 11 Nicholas Boutos, Kenneth Bourne, Genaro Howell, Tristy Cox, and Karen Flores-Lezama in June 12 2023. Compl., ECF No. 1. Because he applied to proceed in forma pauperis, United States 13 Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts screened Freshwadda’s complaint and allowed the excessive 14 force claims against Boutos and Bourne to proceed, but dismissed all claims against Howell, 15 Cox, and Flores-Lezama. Order, ECF No. 7. On November 21, 2023, the defendants answered 16 (ECF No. 14) and filed their certificate of interested parties in compliance with Local Rule 7.1-1 17 (ECF No. 16). There has been no activity in this matter since. 18 This district’s Local Rules provide for dismissal of an action for want of prosecution: 19 All civil actions that have been pending in this Court for more than 270 days without any proceeding of record having been taken may, after notice, be dismissed 20 for want of prosecution by the court sua sponte or on the motion of an attorney or pro se party. 21 22 LR 41-1. Further, it is within the inherent power and discretion of the court to sua sponte 23 dismiss a civil case for lack of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). A plaintiff must prosecute their 24 case with “reasonable diligence” to avoid dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b). Anderson v. Air W., Inc., 25 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Here, because this case has laid dormant for well over a year, 26 Freshwadda has failed to prosecute with reasonable diligence. Thus, this order serves as notice that the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice and syithout further notice unless he 2|| takes action by February 26, 2025. /, / 3 Dated: February 5, 2025 . LZ 4 5 Uni States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 R.O. Brooks Freshwadda, Case No. 2:23-cv-00880-CDS-DJA

5 Plaintiff Notice of Intent to Dismiss Under Local Rule 41-1 6 v.

7 Nicholas Boutos, et al.,

8 Defendants

9 10 Plaintiff R.O. Brooks Freshwadda initiated this civil rights action against defendants 11 Nicholas Boutos, Kenneth Bourne, Genaro Howell, Tristy Cox, and Karen Flores-Lezama in June 12 2023. Compl., ECF No. 1. Because he applied to proceed in forma pauperis, United States 13 Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts screened Freshwadda’s complaint and allowed the excessive 14 force claims against Boutos and Bourne to proceed, but dismissed all claims against Howell, 15 Cox, and Flores-Lezama. Order, ECF No. 7. On November 21, 2023, the defendants answered 16 (ECF No. 14) and filed their certificate of interested parties in compliance with Local Rule 7.1-1 17 (ECF No. 16). There has been no activity in this matter since. 18 This district’s Local Rules provide for dismissal of an action for want of prosecution: 19 All civil actions that have been pending in this Court for more than 270 days without any proceeding of record having been taken may, after notice, be dismissed 20 for want of prosecution by the court sua sponte or on the motion of an attorney or pro se party. 21 22 LR 41-1. Further, it is within the inherent power and discretion of the court to sua sponte 23 dismiss a civil case for lack of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). A plaintiff must prosecute their 24 case with “reasonable diligence” to avoid dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b). Anderson v. Air W., Inc., 25 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Here, because this case has laid dormant for well over a year, 26 Freshwadda has failed to prosecute with reasonable diligence. Thus, this order serves as notice that the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice and syithout further notice unless he 2|| takes action by February 26, 2025. /, / 3 Dated: February 5, 2025 . LZ 4 5 Uni States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Freshwadda v. Boutos, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freshwadda-v-boutos-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack