Adams v. CT, 2:24-cv-00216

Brandon Williams, proceeding pro se, filed multiple lawsuits in the District of Nevada.
Williams neither paid the required filing fees nor filed proper applications to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) for these cases.
The District of Nevada requires the Long Form IFP (AO 239) for non-incarcerated litigants seeking waiver of fees.
The court ordered Williams to either pay the fees or submit fully completed Long Form IFP applications for each case listed.
Williams was warned about filing duplicative or frivolous lawsuits, which could result in sanctions or a vexatious litigant finding.
The court prohibited further filings in the referenced cases until compliance with fee or application requirements.

Issue	Williams' Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to pay filing fee or submit IFP form	Not expressly stated	Not expressly stated	Plaintiff must pay fee or submit full Long Form IFP by deadline
Filing duplicative/frivolous cases	Not addressed by Williams	Not addressed by defendants	Warned of potential sanctions/vexatious litigant finding
Filing documents while noncompliant	Not addressed by Williams	Not addressed by defendants	Prohibited until compliance; may be struck from the docket
Consequences for failing to comply with order	Not addressed by Williams	Not addressed by defendants	Case may be dismissed or administratively closed

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (courts have inherent authority to manage their dockets efficiently)
Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402 (courts have inherent power to control and sanction dockets)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (failure to object to magistrate recommendations may waive appellate review)
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (failure to object to magistrate's findings waives right to appeal factual issues)
Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452 (failure to address/brief issues in objections waives right to appeal)