Gorum v. Brown et al

Filing 39

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice and the pending 27 Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED as moot. Objections to R&R due by 8/29/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/15/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
ANTOINE GORUM,
10
Plaintiff(s),
11
vs.
12
BROWN, et al.,
13
Defendant(s).
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-00079-APG-NJK
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

15

Pending before the Court is the order for Plaintiff to show cause in writing, no later than August

16

4, 2017, why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to update his address. Docket No. 34

17

(citing Local Rule IA 3-1). Plaintiff has failed to file a response. For the reasons discussed more fully

18

below, the Court hereby RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice and

19

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 27) be DENIED as moot.

20

I.

BACKGROUND

21

On May 2, 2017, the Court Clerk’s office mailed to Plaintiff a notice of a Court order. Docket

22

No. 26 (Notice of Electronic Service). That notice was returned to the Court as undeliverable, with a

23

notation that the mail could not be forwarded. Docket No. 33.1 “A party, not the district court, bears

24

the burden of keeping the court apprised of any changes in his mailing address.” Carey v. King, 856

25

F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988). To that end, the Court’s local rules expressly require parties to

26
27
28

1

Since that time, several other Court mailings have been returned as undeliverable. See Docket
Nos. 36-38.

1

“immediately file with the court written notification of any change of mailing address.” Local Rule IA

2

3-1. That rule further warns that the failure to comply “may result in the dismissal of the action.” Id.

3

As a result, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, no later than August 4, 2017, why this case

4

should not be dismissed. Docket No. 34. The order to show cause warned that the “failure to respond

5

to this order will result in a recommendation of dismissal without prejudice.” Id. (emphasis in

6

original). Plaintiff failed to comply with that Court order.

7

II.

ANALYSIS

8

Plaintiff has disobeyed the Local Rules that he update his address and disobeyed the Court’s

9

order that he show cause why the case should not be dismissed. Plaintiff’s failure to update his address

10

and his disobedience of a Court order are abusive litigation practices that have interfered with the

11

Court’s ability to hear this case, delayed litigation, disrupted the Court’s timely management of its

12

docket, wasted judicial resources, and threatened the integrity of the Court’s orders and the orderly

13

administration of justice. Sanctions less drastic than dismissal are unavailable because Plaintiff has

14

refused to comply with the order of this Court notwithstanding the Court’s warning that case-dispositive

15

sanctions may be imposed.

16

Accordingly, in light of the circumstances outlined above, the Court RECOMMENDS that this

17

case be DISMISSED without prejudice and the pending motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 27)

18

be DENIED as moot.

19
20
21

DATED: August 15, 2017
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23

NOTICE

24

Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2 any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be

25

in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within 14 days of service of this document. The

26

Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to

27

the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This

28
2

1

circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly

2

address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s

3

order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153,

4

1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3