Coney v. Lozo ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 3 William Coney, Case No. 2:23-cv-01645-CDS-EJY 4 Plaintiff Order Adopting Report and Recommendation and Closing Case 5 v. 6 Michael Lozo, et al., [ECF No. 23] 7 Defendants 8 9 After screening pro se plaintiff William Coney’s complaint, Magistrate Judge Elayna J. 10 Youchah issued an order dismissing Coney’s First Amendment freedom of speech and retaliatory 11 arrest claims; Fourth Amendment claims for excessive force, false arrest, and false reporting; 12 Fourteenth Amendment due process, double jeopardy, and equal protection claims against Lozo 13 and Mariscal; and his malicious prosecution claim against Lozo and Mariscal without prejudice 14 and with leave to amend. Order and R&R, ECF No. 9. 15 Judge Youchah also recommended that the remaining claims be dismissed with prejudice 16 as amendment would be futile. Id. Because that order was returned as undeliverable (Notice, 17 ECF No. 11), I instructed the Clerk of Court to distribute a copy of the order to Coney’s new 18 address (Notice of change of address, ECF No. 101) and sua sponte extended Coney’s time to file 19 any objections. Order, ECF No. 16. Coney timely filed objections to the R&R. Obj., ECF No. 18. I 20 overruled the objections and gave Coney the opportunity to file an amended complaint by June 21 10, 2024. Order, ECF No. 19. I warned Coney that failure to file an amended complaint by that 22 date would result in dismissal of this case. Id. at 8. That order was also returned as undeliverable 23 (Notice, ECF No. 20) so Coney was ordered to update his address (Order, ECF No. 21). That 24 order advised Coney that if he failed to update his address, the Court would recommend 25 dismissal of this action. Id. That order was also returned as undeliverable. Notice, ECF No. 22. 26 Consequently, Judge Youchah issued a second R&R, noting that Coney had not filed an amended complaint and that each of the court’s orders had been returned by the U.S. Postal 2|| Service as undeliverable, and recommending that this matter be dismissed in its entirety. R@R, 3]| ECF No. 23. This order was also returned as undeliverable. Notice, ECF No. 24. 4 Coney has failed to file an amended complaint and has not taken any action in this case since March 2024. Coney did not file any objections to that R@R and the time to do so has 6|| passed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not 7|| required to review a magistrate judge’s R@R where no objections have been filed. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 9 Coney has seemingly been released from HDSP because orders mailed to him have been returned as undeliverable. But Coney failed to immediately file a written notification of any change of mailing address as required by Local Rule IA 3-1. And “[fJailure to comply with [Local Rule IA 3-1] may result in the dismissal of the action, entry of default judgment, or other sanctions as deemed appropriate by the court.” LR IA 3-1. Further, it is well established that 14|| district courts have the authority to dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute, 15|| failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Ghagaliv. 16|| Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Malone v. 17]| US. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court 18|| order). Dismissal is warranted here because Coney not only failed to comply with Judge 19]| Youchah’s orders, but he also failed to comply with Local Rule IA 3-1 and there remains no 20]| operative complaint in this action. Accordingly, I adopt the second R&R in its entirety and dismiss this action without prejudice. 22 Conclusion 23 Therefore, the R@R [ECF No. 23] is adopted in full. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to enter judgment accordingly and to close this case. / ) 25 Dated: September 9, 2024 Lf 46 aitkec—<—— Unigey State District Judge