Raleigh v. United States

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: July 7, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00402
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Douglas Campbell Raleigh, Case No. 2:25-cv-00402-JAD-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. and 8 Report and Recommendation United States of America; et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 On May 2, 2025, the Court ordered pro se Plaintiff Douglas Campbell Raleigh to pay the 12 filing fee or apply to proceed in forma pauperis (which means to proceed without paying the 13 filing fee). (ECF No. 3). In that order, the Court gave Plaintiff until June 2, 2025, to either pay 14 the filing fee or apply to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court informed Plaintiff that “if 15 Plaintiff does not file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full 16 $405 filing fee for a civil action along with a complaint on one of this Court’s approved forms on 17 or before June 2, 2025, the Court will recommend dismissal of this action.” (Id.) (emphasis in 18 original). To date, Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee, nor applied to proceed in forma 19 pauperis, nor filed anything else on the docket. So, the Court recommends dismissal of this case 20 without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice allows Plaintiff to refile a case with the Court, 21 under a new case number. 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits dismissal of an action for the failure to 23 prosecute or comply with rules or a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). In considering whether to 24 dismiss an action under Rule 41(b), courts consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 25 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 26 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 27 availability of less drastic sanctions. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1998). 1 Here, because Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order or taken any action in this 2 case since March of 2025, the Court recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s case without prejudice. 3 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see LR1 IA 11-8(e) (providing that the Court may, after notice and an 4 opportunity to be heard, impose any and all appropriate sanctions on a party who fails to comply 5 with any order); see Pac. Harbor Capital, Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1112, 1118 6 (9th Cir. 2000) (“an opportunity to be heard does not require an oral or evidentiary hearing on the 7 issue…[t]he opportunity to brief the issue fully satisfies due process requirements”). The first 8 factor weighs in favor of dismissal because the public has an interest in expeditious resolution of 9 litigation and Plaintiff’s failure to further participate in this lawsuit impedes this goal. The 10 second factor weighs in favor of dismissal because the Court’s need to manage its docket is 11 thwarted by Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute his own action and to comply with this Court’s order. 12 The third factor weighs in favor of dismissal because the longer this case is carried on, the more 13 difficult it will be for Defendants to defend against it because witnesses’ memories will fade and 14 evidence may be lost. The fourth factor weighs in favor of Plaintiff, but does not outweigh the 15 other factors. Fifth, lesser sanctions are not available if Plaintiff will not comply with Court 16 orders. So, the Court recommends dismissing this case without prejudice. 17 18 ORDER 19 IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff a copy of 20 this report and recommendation. 21 RECOMMENDATION 22 IT IS RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed without prejudice. 23 24 25 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 NOTICE 2 Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2 any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be 3 in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days after service of this 4 Notice. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has 5 been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 6 U.S. 140, 142 (1985) reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986). The Ninth Circuit has also held that 7 (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief 8 the objectionable issues could waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal 9 factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 10 1991); see Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983); see Miranda 11 v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012). 12 13 DATED: July 7, 2025 14 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27