# Brown v. VanLuven

> District Court, D. Nevada · June 25, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10657838

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Nevada
- **Decided:** June 25, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10657838

## Opinion text

1

2

3

4

5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7

8 JESSICA BROWN,
Case No. 2:24-cv-00406-CDS-NJK
9 Plaintiff(s),
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
10 v.

11 HENDERSON NA P.D., et al.,
12 Defendant(s).
13 Plaintiff initiated this case without paying the required fee and filed an incomplete
14 application to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 1. On March 1, 2024, the Court ordered
15 Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis by April
16 15, 2024. Docket No. 3. The Court warned that “[f]ailure to comply will result in a
17 recommendation to the District Judge that this case be dismissed.” Id. at 2. Notwithstanding that
18 warning, Plaintiff did not comply. On May 17, 2024, the Court then sua sponte extended the
19 deadline for Plaintiff to pay the full filing fee or file a fully complete ifp application to June 17,
20 2024. Docket No. 6. Plaintiff has not complied by paying the full filing fee or filing a fully
21 completed application.
22 This case cannot proceed without Plaintiff either paying the filing fee or filing a motion to
23 proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Having refused
24 to do either in this case, Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to dismissal. E.g., Desai v. Biden, 2021
25 WL 38169, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2021), adopted, 2021 WL 276236 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2021).
26 Moreover, Plaintiff’s refusal to comply with the Court’s order is an abusive litigation
27 practice that has interfered with the Court’s ability to hear this case, delayed litigation, disrupted
28 the Court’s timely management of its docket, wasted judicial resources, and threatened the
1} 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 order of this Court
3] notwithstanding the warning that case-dispositive sanctions may be imposed.
4 Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without
prejudice.
6 Dated: June 25, 2024 he.
Nancy J. Koppe
8 United States) lagistrate Judge
9

10 NOTICE
11 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned
12] to this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and
13] recommendation must file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen
14] days of being served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file
15] a timely objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951
16] F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10657838. Public record. Not legal advice.