Randall v. Stockard, 3:25-cv-00217

Aaron Randall filed a civil rights complaint on May 1, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.
Randall failed to submit either an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) or pay the required filing fee.
The Court ordered Randall to comply by June 5, 2025, warning that failure to do so could lead to dismissal without prejudice.
Randall did not comply with the Court’s order by the deadline.
The matter was referred to a U.S. Magistrate Judge pursuant to statute and local rules.
The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation advising dismissal of the action without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s directive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Dismissal for failure to comply with court order	No argument submitted	Presumed prejudice from delay	Dismissal without prejudice
Requirement to submit IFP or pay filing fee	No argument submitted	Compliance required	Dismissal without prejudice
Opportunity to cure before dismissal	Not addressed	Court provided explicit warning	Court's warning was adequate
Appropriateness of dismissal without prejudice	Not addressed	Appropriate under circumstances	Dismissal without prejudice

Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1986) (addresses factors for dismissal for failure to comply with court order)
Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995) (court may dismiss for non-compliance with local rules)
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with order to amend complaint)
Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to keep court apprised of address)
Malone v. United States Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order)
Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522 (9th Cir. 1976) (prejudice presumed from delay in prosecuting case)