Gwendolyn R. Reddic v. Sagre

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Gwendolyn R. Reddic, Case No. 2:25-cv-01657-RFB-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. and 8 Report and Recommendation Sagre, 9 Defendant. 10 11 On September 8, 2025, the Court entered an order denying Plaintiff’s application to 12 proceed in forma pauperis (meaning, without paying the filing fee) and requiring Plaintiff to file a 13 complaint. (ECF No. 3). In that order, the Court gave Plaintiff until October 8, 2025, to either 14 file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee and to file a complaint. (Id.). 15 The Court informed Plaintiffs that “[f]ailure to timely comply with this order may result in a 16 recommendation to the district judge that this case be dismissed.” (Id.). To date, Plaintiff has not 17 filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the filing fee, or filed a complaint. 18 Plaintiff has filed nothing further on the docket since the Court’s order. So, the Court 19 recommends dismissal of this case without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice allows 20 Plaintiff to refile a case with the Court, under a new case number. 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits dismissal of an action for the failure to 22 prosecute or comply with rules or a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). In considering whether to 23 dismiss an action under Rule 41(b), courts consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 24 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 25 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 26 availability of less drastic sanctions. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1998). 27 Here, because Plaintiffs have not complied with the Court’s order or taken any action in 1 prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see LR1 IA 11-8(e) (providing that the Court may, after 2 notice and an opportunity to be heard, impose any and all appropriate sanctions on a party who 3 fails to comply with any order); see Pac. Harbor Capital, Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, Inc., 210 4 F.3d 1112, 1118 (9th Cir. 2000) (“an opportunity to be heard does not require an oral or 5 evidentiary hearing on the issue…[t]he opportunity to brief the issue fully satisfies due process 6 requirements”). The first factor weighs in favor of dismissal because the public has an interest in 7 expeditious resolution of litigation and Plaintiff’s failure to further participate in this lawsuit 8 impedes this goal. The second factor weighs in favor of dismissal because the Court’s need to 9 manage its docket is thwarted by Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute her own action and to comply 10 with this Court’s order. The third factor weighs in favor of dismissal because the longer this case 11 is carried on, the more difficult it will be for Defendants to defend against it because witnesses’ 12 memories will fade and evidence may be lost. The fourth factor weighs in favor of Plaintiff, but 13 does not outweigh the other factors. Fifth, lesser sanctions are not available if Plaintiff will not 14 comply with Court orders. So, the Court recommends dismissing this case without prejudice. 15 16 ORDER 17 IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff a copy of 18 this order and report and recommendation. 19 RECOMMENDATION 20 IT IS RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed without prejudice. 21 22 NOTICE 23 Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2 any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be 24 in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days after service of this 25 Notice. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has 26 27 1 This refers to the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, District of Nevada, which can be found on the Court’s website at https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/court- 1 been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 2 U.S. 140, 142 (1985) reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986). The Ninth Circuit has also held that 3 (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief 4 the objectionable issues could waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal 5 factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 6 1991); see Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983); see Miranda 7 v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012). 8 9 DATED: May 5, 2026, 10 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27