1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 Jamar Hunter, Case No. 2:24-cv-00420-GMN-BNW 5 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 6 v. 7 Officer B. Wood #17066, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 On January 30, 2025, this Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by March 11 6, 2025. ECF No. 4. It warned Plaintiff that failure to do so would result in a recommendation 12 that the case be dismissed. Id. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by the deadline, so this 13 Court issued another minute order. ECF No. 6. It again ordered Plaintiff to file an amended 14 complaint and warned him that failure to comply would likely result in a recommendation to 15 dismiss the case. Id. 16 In addition, on March 31, 2025, this Court received notice that Plaintiff’s mail was 17 returned as undeliverable. ECF No. 7. This Court promptly issued a minute order directing 18 Plaintiff to update his address by April 17, 2025, and warned him that failure to do so may result 19 in dismissal of his case. ECF No. 8. This Court directed the Clerks’ Office to mail a copy of the 20 minute order to the Plaintiff. Id. That mailed minute order was also returned as undeliverable. 21 ECF No. 9. Despite numerous warnings, Plaintiff has neither filed an amended complaint nor 22 updated his address, and the deadlines to do so have passed. As a result, this Court recommends 23 that this case be dismissed without prejudice. 24 The law permits a district court to dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute 25 his case or comply with a court order. See Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest 26 Serv.,

(9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that courts may dismiss an action pursuant 27 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply 1 action, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) 2 the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 3 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 4 alternatives. In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006) 5 (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

(9th Cir. 1987)). 6 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 7 court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissing Plaintiff’s claims. The third 8 factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of 9 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court 10 or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 11 factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits— weighs against dismissal. 12 The fifth factor requires the court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used 13 to correct the party’s failure that brought about the court’s need to consider dismissal. Courts 14 “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must 15 explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan,

, 1424 (9th 16 Cir. 1986). Because Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint, despite two court orders to 17 do so, the only alternative is enter a third order directing Plaintiff to prosecute his case. In 18 addition, because Plaintiff has failed to update his address, despite a court order to do so, the only 19 alternative is to enter another order. The circumstances here do not indicate that Plaintiff needs 20 additional time, and this case cannot proceed without an operative complaint. Setting another 21 deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So, the fifth factor favors 22 dismissal. 23 In balance, the factors above favor a recommendation of dismissal. See Hernandez v. City 24 of El Monte,

(9th Cir. 1998) (holdings dismissal is proper where least four factors 25 support dismissal or where at least three factors “strongly” support dismissal). 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED for 2 || failure to file an amended complaint and updated address in violation of multiple court orders. 3 4 NOTICE 5 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States district judge assigned 6 || to this case under

(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation 7 || may file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being 8 || served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely 9 || objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Yist,

, 10 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 1] 12 DATED: May 2, 2025 13 LE mw le WEE aN BRENDA WEKSLER 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28