Washington v. Ivany ( 2023 )

2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA *** 6 Rodney Lashain Washington, 7 Case No. 2:22-cv-01450-CDS-VCF Plaintiff, 8 vs. Order 9 Susan Ivany, et al., 10 Defendants. Motion to Extend Time (ECF No. 5) 11 12 I previously denied pro se plaintiff Rodney Lashain Washington’s application to proceed in 13 forma pauperis without prejudice. ECF No. 3. When plaintiff missed his deadline to either file an 14 updated long form IFP application or pay the filing fee, I ordered that this case be administratively 15 closed for failure to commence this action. ECF No. 4. 16 Pro se plaintiff Washington has now filed a motion for an extension of time. ECF No. 5. His 17 handwriting is difficult to read, but he appears to ask for more time to file his updated long form IFP 18 application. Id. Reading his motion liberally, I also interpret his motion as a request to reopen this case. 19 I grant plaintiff’s motion in part, to the extent that he requests more time to file his updated IFP 20 application and to reopen this case. 21 ACCORDINGLY, 22 23 I ORDER that the Clerk of Court is directed to REOPEN this case. 24 I FURTHER ORDER that plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED 25 IN PART, as specified in this order. I FURTHER ORDER that plaintiff Washington has until Monday, March 6, 2023, to either (1) 5 file an updated IFP application using the long form as specified in my previous order (ECF No. 3) or (2) 3 || Pay the filing fee. Failure to timely comply with this Order may result in case closure or a 4 recommendation for dismissal with prejudice. 5 NOTICE 6 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 7 |! recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 8 || of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal ° may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District 4 Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 15 1153, 1157 (th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 16 || Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any 17 || change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, 18 || or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may 19 || result in dismissal of the action. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. I DATED this 5th day of January 2023. 23 CAM FERENBACH 04 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25