UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 *** 4 Eric Christian, Case No. 2:19-cv-00476-APG-VCF 5 Plaintiff, 6 vs. ORDER 7 Eric Honea, et al., Motion/Application for Leave To Proceed In Defendants. 8 Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 14); Motions For Writ of Execution (ECF Nos. 15 and 16)

9

10 Judge Gordon previously denied pro se plaintiff Eric Christian’s motion for seizure of property 11 (ECF No. 11) as an inappropriate rogue filing. ECF No. 12. Judge Gordon noted that he, “previously 12 dismissed this case and judgment was entered.” Id., citing to ECF Nos. 8 and 9. Judge Gordon also 13 noted that, “[t]he plaintiff was instructed that he could file a new complaint in a new lawsuit if his 14 convictions were later invalidated, or he could file a habeas petition if he preferred to attempt that route 15 (without suggesting that a habeas petition would be proper).” Id. citing to ECF No. 8. 16 Plaintiff has now filed a motion/application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and two 17 motions for writ of execution in this case. ECF Nos. 14, 15, and 16. I deny all the motions for the same 18 reasons: judgement in this case was entered against the plaintiff, this case is closed, and these filings are 19 inappropriate rogue filings. 20 Accordingly, 21 I ORDER that plaintiff’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for writs of 22 23 execution in this case (ECF Nos. 14, 15, and 16) are DENIED. 24 NOTICE 25 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal

may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified

3 time. Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file

4 objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues

5 || Waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the 6 || District Court. Martinez v. Yist,

(9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. 7 || Dist.,

, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR JA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file g || written notification with the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of 9 service upon each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by 10 |} counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action. 11 ITIS SO ORDERED. 12 DATED this 10th day of April 2023. 13 Lav ote 4 CAM FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25