Iske v. State of Nevada

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA HARLAN ISKE, Case No. 2:24-cv-01587-JAD-NJK 7 Plaintiff ORDER ADOPTING v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION STATE OF NEVADA, et al., ECF No. 14 10 Defendants On 4/13/25, the magistrate judge entered this report and recommendation [13]: Plaintiff is a prisoner with three strikes, who was ordered to pay the full filing fee in this case. Docket Nos. 9, 10. On March 13, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to make that payment by April 11, 2025. Docket No. 11. Plaintiff was expressly warned that “FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THE CASE.” Id. at 1 (emphasis in original). Plaintiff failed to make that payment or to seek an extension of the pertinent deadline.1 As Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was denied, this case cannot proceed without Plaintiff paying the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Failure to do so subjects the case to dismissal. See, e.g., Desai v. Biden, 2021 WL 38169, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2021), adopted, 2021 WL 276236 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2021).

Moreover, Plaintiff’s refusal to comply with the Court’s order is an abusive litigation practice that has 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 Court’s order notwithstanding the indication that case-dispositive sanctions may be imposed.

1 One of the preceding orders was returned as undeliverable. Docket No. 12. Plaintiff’s apparent failure to update his address would also be grounds for dismissal. See, e.g., Local Rule IA 3-1. ] Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice.

3 Dated: April 18, 2025 Nancy J. Koppé; 5 United States Magistrate Judge 7 ORDER 8 The deadline for any party to object to this recommendation was 5/2/25, and no party 9| filed anything or asked to extend the deadline to do so. “[N]o review is required of a magistrate 10] judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 11] 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Having reviewed the report and recommendation, I find 12|| good cause to adopt it, and I do. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s 13] Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 13] is ADOPTED in its entirety. This case is DISMISSED, and the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.

Snes 16 U.S. District Judge Jennifer’A. Dorsey Dated: May 12, 2025