1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 RAY SHARPE, Case No.: 2:22-cv-01624-MMD-NJK

7 Plaintiff, Report and Recommendation 8 v.

9 LT RUIZ, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 On January 10, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either retain new counsel or file a notice 12 of intent to proceed pro se by February 10, 2025. Docket No. 90. Plaintiff violated that order. On 13 February 18, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either indicate to the Court that he intends to 14 proceed pro se or have new counsel enter an appearance on his behalf by February 28, 2025. 15 Docket No. 97. Plaintiff failed to do so. See Docket. On March 3, 2025, the Court ordered 16 Plaintiff to file a notice that he intends to proceed pro se or have new counsel enter an appearance 17 on his behalf by April 4, 2025. Docket No. 99. Plaintiff, once again, failed to do so. The Court’s 18 orders warned Plaintiff that “failure to comply may result in sanctions.” Docket Nos. 97 at 1, 99 19 at 1 (emphasis in the original). 20 Further, Plaintiff’s address is incorrect. See Docket Nos. 93, 94, 98, 100 (mail returned as 21 undeliverable). “A party, not the district court, bears the burden of keeping the court apprised of 22 any changes in his mailing address.” Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988). To that 23 end, the Court’s local rules requires a pro se party to “immediately file with the court written 24 notification of any change of mailing address.” Local Rule IA 3-1. The rule expressly warns that 25 “failure to comply with this rule may result in the dismissal of this action.”

26 Plaintiff has disobeyed the Court’s orders and the Local Rules. Plaintiff’s failure to update 27 his address, his violation of the Local Rules, and his disobedience of Court orders are abusive 28 litigation practices that have interfered with the Court’s ability to hear this case, delayed litigation, 1} disrupted the Court’s timely management of its docket, wasted judicial resources, and threatened 2|| the integrity of the Court’s orders and the orderly administration of justice. Sanctions less drastic 3] than dismissal are unavailable because Plaintiff has refused to comply with the orders of this Court 4] notwithstanding the Court’s warnings that sanctions may be imposed. 5 Accordingly, in light of the circumstances outlined above, the Cour. RECOMMENDS 6] that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to send 7| this report and recommendation to Plaintiff via both his mailing address and his email address. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: April 9, 2025 10 ZS FE. 11 United-States Magistrate Judge 12 13 NOTICE 14 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case pursuant to

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