Case Information
*1 Case 2:24-cv-00421-GMN-NJK Document 6 Filed 03/25/24 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
MATTHEW DOUGLAS, Case No. 2:24-cv-00421-GMN-NJK
Plaintiff, REPORT & RECOMMENDATION v. STACEY COLLINS, et al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff has failed to update his address. E.g. , Docket Nos. 3, 5. “A party, not the district court, bears the burden of keeping the court apprised of any changes in his mailing address.” Carey v. King , 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) ( per curiam ); see also In re Hammer , 940 F.2d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1991). To that end, the local rules require that litigants immediately file written notification of any change of address, and the local rules expressly warn that failure to do so may result in case-dispositive sanctions. See Local Rule IA 3-1.
On February 26, 2024, the Court sent Plaintiff a letter, which was returned as undeliverable with the notation that Plaintiff had escaped from High Desert State Prison. See Docket No. 4. Therefore, on March 5, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a notice of change of address by March 22, 2024. Id . The Court expressly warned that “FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THIS CASE . ” Id. at 1. To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with that order.
Plaintiff has disobeyed the local rules and the Court’s order requiring prompt updating of a litigant’s address. Plaintiff’s failure to update his address, his disobedience with the local rules, and his disobedience of the Court’s order are abusive litigation practices that have interfered with the Court’s ability to hear this case, delayed litigation, disrupted the Court’s timely management of its docket, wasted judicial resources, and threatened the integrity of the Court’s orders and the orderly administration of justice. Sanctions less drastic than dismissal are unavailable because Plaintiff has refused to comply with the order of this Court notwithstanding the warning that case-
1
Case 2:24-cv-00421-GMN-NJK Document 6 Filed 03/25/24 Page 2 of 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 warranted or an order imposing sanctions would only find itself taking a round trip tour through the United States mail.” Carey , 856 F.2d at 1441.
Accordingly, in light of the circumstances outlined above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice.
Dated: March 25, 2024
______________________________ Nancy J. Koppe United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned 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 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. Ylst , 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).
2