Wallace v. Close Legal Description

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 John William Wallace, Case No. 2:24-cv-02108-JAD-DJA 6 Plaintiff 7 Order Adopting Report and v. Recommendation and 8 Dismissing Case Close Legal Description, 9 Defendant ECF No. 13 10 11 On 8/20/25 the magistrate judge entered this report and recommendation [13]: 12 On January 10, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or apply to 13 proceed in forma pauperis (meaning without paying the filing fee). The Court gave Plaintiff until 14 February 10, 2025, to comply. The Court sent the order to Plaintiff, but his mail was returned as 15 undeliverable. So, on January 28, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to update his address and 16 gave him until February 27, 2025, to do so. See Nevada Local Rule IA 3-1.1 In both of its 17 orders, the Court explained that Plaintiff’s failure to comply could result in the Court dismissing 18 his case. Plaintiff missed the February 27, 2025, deadline. 19 On May 5, 2025, the Court entered an order giving Plaintiff one final opportunity to either 20 pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis and one final opportunity to 21 update his address. (ECF No. 9). The Court explained that “[f]ailure to do so will result in the 22 dismissal of Plaintiff’s case without prejudice.”2 (Id.). To date, Plaintiff has neither paid the 23 1 This refers to the Local Rules for the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. 24 These rules can be found online at https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/court-information/rules- andorders/. 25 2 This case was previously assigned to the magistrate judge consent program. (ECF No. 3). 26 However, Defendant has not appeared in this case and so, has not consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. Because all defendants, even unserved defendants, must consent before a 27 magistrate judge can issue dispositive orders—such as an order dismissing the case—the Court has randomly assigned this case to a district judge and the undersigned magistrate judge issues 1 filing fee nor filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and has not updated his address. 2 Plaintiff did file a document on the docket titled “amended complaint” on May 16, 2025. (ECF 3 No. 10). But that document is comprised of what appears to be multiple addresses and an 4 advertisement. (Id.). 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits dismissal of an action for the failure to 6 prosecute or comply with rules or a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). In considering whether to 7 dismiss an action under Rule 41(b), courts consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 8 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 9 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 10 availability of less drastic sanctions. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1998). 11 Here, because Plaintiff has not complied with this Court’s order and has not taken any 12 further action in this case since May 16, 2025, the Court recommends dismissal of Plaintiffs’ case 13 without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see LR IA 11-8(e). The first factor weighs in favor 14 of dismissal because the public has an interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and 15 Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Court orders or further participate in this lawsuit impedes this 16 goal. The second factor weighs in favor of dismissal because the Court’s need to manage its 17 docket is thwarted by Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Court orders, update his address, or 18 prosecute this action. The third factor weighs in favor of dismissal because the longer this case is 19 carried on, the more witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence may be lost. The fourth factor 20 weighs in favor of Plaintiff, but does not outweigh the other factors. Fifth, the Court has no less 21 drastic sanctions when Plaintiff has not complied with prior Court orders. Given Plaintiff’s 22 failure to comply with Court orders—including a Court order for Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or 23 apply to proceed without doing so—monetary sanctions are not practical. Nor are other non- 24 monetary sanctions an option as Plaintiff chooses not to follow Court orders. The fifth factor thus 25 weighs in favor of dismissal. 26 27 994, 1005 (9th Cir. 2019) (explaining that “Section 636(c)(1)…requires consent of all parties— ] IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed without 2 || prejudice. 3 ORDER 4 The deadline for any party to object to this recommendation was 9/3/2025, and no party 5 || filed anything or asked to extend the deadline to do so. “[N]o review is required of a magistrate 6 || judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 7 || 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Having reviewed the report and recommendation, I find 8 || good cause to adopt it, and I do. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s 9 || Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 13] is ADOPTED in its entirety, and THIS CASE IS 10 |} DISMISSED for the reasons stated in the report and recommendation. The Clerk of Court is 11 || directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. 2 ream US. District JudgeYennifer\A/ Dorsey 13 Dated: September 5, 2025 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28