1 2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 ANTONIO WHEELER and HEM RAMACHANDRAN, Case No. 2:24-cv-00154-APG-NJK 7 Plaintiffs, REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 8 v. 9 PETER BANYAI, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 Plaintiff Hem Ramachandran has failed to update his address. E.g., Docket Nos. 10, 12, 13 13, 16. “A party, not the district court, bears the burden of keeping the court apprised of any 14 changes in his mailing address.” Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam); 15 see also In re Hammer,

(9th Cir. 1991). To that end, the local rules require that 16 litigants immediately file written notification of any change of address, and the local rules 17 expressly warn that failure to do so may result in case-dispositive sanctions. See Local Rule IA 3- 18 1. 19 On March 1, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff Ramachandran to file a notice of change of 20 address by March 29, 2024. Docket No. 11. Plaintiff Ramachandran failed to do so. The Court 21 expressly warned that “FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN 22 DISMISSAL OF THIS CASE.” Id. at 1 (emphasis in original). To date, Plaintiff Ramachandran 23 has failed to comply with that order. 24 Plaintiff Ramachandran has disobeyed the local rules and the Court’s orders requiring 25 prompt updating of a litigant’s address. Plaintiff Ramachandran’s failure to update his address, 26 his disobedience with the local rules, and his disobedience of the Court’s orders are abusive 27 litigation practices that have interfered with the Court’s ability to hear this case, delayed litigation, 28 disrupted the Court’s timely management of its docket, wasted judicial resources, and threatened 1} the integrity of the Court’s orders and the orderly administration of justice. Sanctions less drastic than dismissal are unavailable because Plaintiff Ramachandran has refused to comply with the 3] orders of this Court notwithstanding the warning that case-dispositive sanctions may be imposed. 4 Accordingly, in light of the circumstances outlined above, the undersigned 5] RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice as to Plaintiff Ramachandran. 6 Dated: August 22, 2024

Nancy J. Koppe 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 NOTICE 11 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned 12] to this case pursuant to

(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and 13] recommendation must file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen 14] days of being served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file 15] a timely objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 16] F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28