Opinion

Adams v. Brown

Court
District Court, D. Nevada
Filed
Mar 26, 2024
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 26.4%

courts have 25 2 1 “have inherent power to control their docket” which includes “the power to strike items from 2 the docket as a sanction....”

How later courts described this case

  • courts have 25 2 1 “have inherent power to control their docket” which includes “the power to strike items from 2 the docket as a sanction....”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

4

In Re: Brandon Adams, 2:23-cv-01923-CDS-MDC

5 2:24-cv-00216-CDS-MDC

Plaintiff, 2:24-cv-00219-CDS-MDC

6 2:24-cv-00220-CDS-MDC

2:24-cv-00282-CDS-MDC

7 2:24-cv-00392-CDS-MDC

2:22-cv-01234-CDS-MDC

8

9

Pro se plaintiff Brandon Williams filed complaints in the above referenced matters but has neither

10

paid filing fees nor filed, and been approved, applications to proceed in forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C.

11

§ 1914(a), a filing fee is required to commence a civil action in federal court. Under 28 U.S.C. §

12

1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of fees or security thereof” if the

13

plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the plaintiff “is unable to pay such fees or give

14

security therefor.” Id.

15

The District of Nevada has adopted three types of in forma pauperis (“IFP”) applications: a

16

“Prisoner Form” for incarcerated persons, and a “Short Form” (AO 240) or “Long Form” (AO 239) for

17 non-incarcerated persons. The Court requires plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or file the Long Form

18 IFP application (AO 239) for each of the following matters:

2:23-cv-01923-CDS-MDC

19

2:24-cv-00216-CDS-MDC

20 2:24-cv-00219-CDS-MDC

2:24-cv-00220-CDS-MDC

21 2:24-cv-00282-CDS-MDC

2:24-cv-00392-CDS-MDC

22 2:22-cv-01234-CDS-MDC

23

In completing the Long Form IFP application (AO 239), the plaintiff shall provide: (a) detailed

24

and complete answers to all the information requested in the Long Form; and (b) detailed explanations

25

about his income and expenses, so that the Court is able to make a fact finding regarding the plaintiff’s

1 financial status. Plaintiff must answer all questions in the Long Form and cannot leave any questions blank

2 or respond that a question is “N/A” without an explanation.

3

Accordingly, IT ORDERED that:

4

1. Plaintiff has until April 9, 2024, to pay the filing fee in full or file the Long Form IFP

5

application (AO 239) in each of the following matters:

6 2:23-cv-01923-CDS-MDC

2:24-cv-00216-CDS-MDC

7 2:24-cv-00219-CDS-MDC

2:24-cv-00220-CDS-MDC

8 2:24-cv-00282-CDS-MDC

2:24-cv-00392-CDS-MDC

9 2:22-cv-01234-CDS-MDC

10 2. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this case or a report and

11 recommendation that this case be administratively closed.

12 3. The Court notes that plaintiff has filed duplicative cases and cautions plaintiff that filing

13 duplicative and/or frivolous lawsuits may result in adverse consequences, including possible

sanctions or a finding that he is a vexatious litigant.

14

4. Plaintiff shall not file any documents with the Court in any of the following cases: 2:23-

15

cv-01923-CDS-MDC; 2:24-cv-00216-CDS-MDC; 2:24-cv-00219-CDS-MDC; 2:24-cv-

16

00220-CDS-MDC; 2:24-cv-00282-CDS-MDC; 2:24-cv-00392-CDS-MDC; or 2:22-cv-

17

01234-CDS-MDC, until he has either paid the full filing fee, or the Court has approved his

18

Long Form application to proceed in forma pauperis and screened his complaint. Any

19

documents filed in violation of this Order may not be acted upon by the Court and may be

20

struck sua sponte from the docket. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)(the “commencement” of the

21

action without payment of filing fees is not permitted unless the IFP application is granted);

22

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 42, 111 S.Ct. 2123 (1991)(courts have the inherent

23

authority to manage their dockets “to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of

24 cases.”); Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010)(courts have

25

2

1 “have inherent power to control their docket” which includes “the power to strike items from

2 the docket as a sanction....”).

NOTICE

° Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and

‘ recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk

° of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal

6 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified

7 |I time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file

8 || objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues

9 || waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the

10 || District Court. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch.

11 || Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR JA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file

12 || written notification with the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of

13 |[ Service upon each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by

4 counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action.

15 IT IS SO ORDERED. ff ZA a

a

16 Dated: March 26, 2024. f- Br, □

fo fA

18 Lo Maximilian®/9. Cony fl

19 United Stat#s Magistfate Judge

20 PF

21

22

23

24

25

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.