1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 PETER TIA, Case No. 2:25-cv-01659-___-NJK1 7 Petitioner(s), Report and Recommendation 8 v.

9 10 Defendant(s). 11 Plaintiff describes himself as mentally ill, Docket No. 1-1 at 1, and is subject elsewhere to 12 filing restrictions, see Tia v. CoreCivic, Case No. CV 19-4545-ODW (AS), Docket No. 7 (C.D. 13 Cal. Aug. 15, 2019). Plaintiff filed this case without a proper complaint identifying in clear fashion 14 the defendant(s) that he intends to sue.2 Plaintiff also failed to either pay the filing fee or file an 15 application to proceed in forma pauperis. On September 8, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to 16 (1) file a complaint on the form used by pro se litigants and (2) either pay the filing fee or file an 17 application to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 5. The deadline to comply was set for 18 September 29, 2025. Id. at 2. The Court warned that “[f]ailure to comply with this order may 19 result in dismissal.” Id. (emphasis in original). 20 Despite the issuance of the above warning, Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or file an 21 application to proceed in forma pauperis.3 This case cannot proceed without Plaintiff either paying 22 the filing fee or filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See

(a); see also 23 1 This case was assigned to the consent opt-out program. See Docket Nos. 2-3. 24 2 The Court liberally construes the filings of pro se litigants. Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007). 26 3 Plaintiff also did not file a complaint on the identified form. Instead, Plaintiff filed three separate “statements” that do not include a caption and do not clearly identify the defendant(s) that 27 Plaintiff intends to sue. Docket Nos. 6-8. Ultimately, the Court need not address the failure to comply with the order to file a complaint on the identified form in light of the recommendation of 28 dismissal made herein. 1}

(a). Having refused to do either in this case, Plaintiff's complaint is subject to 2|| dismissal. F.g., Desai v. Biden,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2021), adopted, 2021 3] WL 276236 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2021). Moreover, Plaintiffs refusal to comply with the Court’s 4] order is an abusive litigation practice that has interfered with the Court’s ability to hear this case, 5| delayed litigation, disrupted the Court’s timely management of its docket, wasted judicial 6] resources, and threatened the integrity of the Court’s orders and the orderly administration of 7|| justice. Sanctions less drastic than dismissal are unavailable because Plaintiff has refused to 8|| comply with the order of this Court notwithstanding the warning that case-dispositive sanctions may be imposed. 10 Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to assign a district judge to this case. 12 Dated: September 30, 2025

Nancy J. Koppe 14 United Statés“Magistrate Judge 15 16 NOTICE 17 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned 18] to this case pursuant to

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