Tinika Se’Cal Warren v. Nasir Jones, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * Tinika Se’Cal Warren, Case No. 2:25-cv-01875-GMN-DJA Plaintiff, Order v. and Report and Recommendation Nasir Jones, et al., Defendants. On November 19, 2025, the undersigned magistrate judge entered an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause why the undersigned should not recommend dismissal of the action for Plaintiff’s failure to file a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the filing fee by the November 5, 2025, deadline. (ECF No. 9). The undersigned gave Plaintiff until December 19, 2025, to file her response to the order to show cause. (Id.). In doing so, the undersigned informed Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to timely comply with this order will result in the recommended dismissal of this case.” (Id.). Plaintiff missed that deadline and, to date, has not filed anything further on the docket. So, the undersigned recommends dismissal of this case without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice allows Plaintiff to refile a case with the Court, under a new case number. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits dismissal of an action for the failure to prosecute or comply with rules or a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). In considering whether to dismiss an action under Rule 41(b), courts consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1998). Here, because Plaintiff has not complied with the undersigned’s order or taken any further See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see LR1 IA 11-8(e) (providing that the Court may, after notice and an opportunity to be heard, impose any and all appropriate sanctions on a party who fails to comply with any order); see Pac. Harbor Capital, Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1112, 1118 (9th Cir. 2000) (“an opportunity to be heard does not require an oral or evidentiary hearing on the issue…[t]he opportunity to brief the issue fully satisfies due process requirements”). The first factor weighs in favor of dismissal because the public has an interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and Plaintiff’s failure to further participate in this lawsuit impedes this goal. The second factor weighs in favor of dismissal because the Court’s need to manage its docket is thwarted by Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and to comply with the undersigned’s order. The third factor weighs in favor of dismissal because the longer this case is carried on, the more difficult it will be for Defendants to defend against it because witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence may be lost. The fourth factor weighs in favor of Plaintiff, but does not outweigh the other factors. Fifth, lesser sanctions are not available if Plaintiff will not comply with Court orders. So, the undersigned recommends dismissing this case without prejudice. IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff a copy of this report and recommendation. IT IS RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed without prejudice. 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- Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2 any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days after service of this Notice. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985) reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986). The Ninth Circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues could waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); see Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983); see Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012). DATED: May 11, 2026, DANIEL J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE