Smith Jr. v. State of Nevada

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 24, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01465
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7

8 MELVIN DAVID SMITH JR., Case No. 2:23-cv-01465-CDS-NJK 9 Plaintiff(s), REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 10 v.

11 STATE OF NEVADA, 12 Defendant(s). 13 Plaintiff has failed to update his address. E.g., Docket No. 4. “A party, not the district 14 court, bears the burden of keeping the court apprised of any changes in [her] mailing address.” 15 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam); see also In re Hammer, 940 F.2d 16 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1991). To that end, the local rules require that litigants immediately file written 17 notification of any change of address, and the local rules expressly warn that failure to do so may 18 result in case-dispositive sanctions. See Local Rule IA 3-1. 19 On March 25, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a notice of change of address by 20 April 22, 2024. Docket No. 5. The Court expressly warned that “FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 21 THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN THE DISMISSAL OF THIS CASE.” Id. at 1 (emphasis in 22 original). To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with that order. 23 Plaintiff has disobeyed the local rules and the Court’s order requiring prompt updating of 24 a litigant’s address. Plaintiff’s failure to update his address, his disobedience with the local rules, 25 and his disobedience of the Court’s order are abusive litigation practices that have interfered with 26 the Court’s ability to hear this case, delayed litigation, disrupted the Court’s timely management 27 of its docket, wasted judicial resources, and threatened the integrity of the Court’s orders and the 28 orderly administration of justice. Sanctions less drastic than dismissal are unavailable because 1} Plaintiff has refused to comply with the order of this Court notwithstanding the warning that case- 2|| dispositive sanctions may be imposed. Moreover, the Court is unable to contact Plaintiff “to threaten him with some lesser sanction [because] [a]n order to show cause why dismissal was not 4|| warranted or an order imposing sanctions would only find itself taking a round trip tour through 5] the United States mail.” Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441; see also Docket No. 6. 6 Accordingly, in light of the circumstances outlined above, the undersigned 7| RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. 8 Dated: April 24, 2024 _Z2

10 Unite See agistrate Judge 1] 12 NOTICE 13 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned 14] to this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation must file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen 16] days of being served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 18] F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28