Macias v. State of Nevada Unemployment

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 MARCELINO MACIAS, 8 Case No. 2:24-cv-01810-CDS-NJK Plaintiff(s), 9 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION v. 10 STATE OF NEVADA UNEMPLOYMENT, 11 et al., 12 Defendant(s). 13 On September 26, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 14 pauperis without prejudice. Docket No. 4. The Court noted that the application was not signed 15 by Plaintiff,1 was submitted on the wrong form, and was incomplete. See id. at 1-2. The Court 16 ordered that, if Plaintiff wished to proceed with this case, he had to file a proper application with 17 all of the required documentation by October 30, 2024. Id. at 2. Plaintiff did not do so. 18 On November 6, 2024, the Court sua sponte extended the deadline to file a proper 19 application to proceed in forma pauperis to November 20, 2024. Docket No. 5 at 1. The Court 20 warned therein that “[f]ailure to comply with this deadline may result in dismissal of the case.” 21 Id. (emphasis in original). Despite that warning, Plaintiff has not complied. 22 This case cannot proceed without Plaintiff either paying the filing fee or filing a motion to 23 proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Having refused 24 to do either in this case, Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to dismissal. E.g., Desai v. Biden, 2021 25 WL 38169, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2021), adopted, 2021 WL 276236 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2021). 26 27

28 1 The application was instead signed by a “power of attorney.” ] Moreover, Plaintiff's refusal to comply with the Court’s orders is an abusive litigation 2|) practice that has interfered with the Court’s ability to hear this case, delayed litigation, disrupted 3] the Court’s timely management of its docket, wasted judicial resources, and threatened the 4] integrity of the Court’s orders and the orderly administration of Justice. Sanctions less drastic than 5| dismissal are unavailable because Plaintiff has refused to comply with the order of this Court 6] notwithstanding the warning that case-dispositive sanctions may be imposed. 7 Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without 8|| prejudice. 9 Dated: December 4, 2024 - Nancy J. Koppe 1] United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 NOTICE 14 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and 16] recommendation must file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen 17| days of being served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file 18] a timely objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 19] F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28