Harris v. The State of Nevada ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 || Barry Harris, 2:24-cv-01496-GMN-MDC 4 Plaintiff(s), ORDER DENYING IFP AS MOOT AND >|] VS. DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO FILE 6 The State of Nevada, IN CRIMINAL CASE 7 Defendant(s). 8 Pending before the Court is plaintiff's Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma 9 || Pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 4). However, the District Judge ordered the Clerk of Court to 10 || administratively close this case and open and file plaintiff's filings in a new criminal matter. See ECF 11 || No. 3. Therefore, plaintiff's IFP application and all future filings should be filed in his criminal case 12 || (2:24-cr-00214-JCM-NJK-1). However, given that the Order (ECF No. 3) was not entered until 13 || September 24, 2024 — the same day as plaintiffs filing — the Court will presume that plaintiff did not 14 receive the Order until after he had sent in his IFP application. 15 ACCORDINGLY, 16 IT IS ORDERED that: 17 1. The IFP application (ECF No. 4) is DENIED AS MOOT. 12 2. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to file this IFP application (ECF No. 4) in plaintiff’s criminal case (2:24-cr-00214-JCM-NJK-1). 19 3. Plaintiff must file all future documents in this matter under the case number: 2:24-cr-00214- 20 JCM-NJK-1. 21 4. case will remain administratively closed. 22 DATED this 26" day of September 2024. Li~l, oo 23 Ah ff x IT IS SO ORDERED. i i 24 L if 35 Hon. Maxinjiliand D. Couvillier III United States Magistrate Judge 1 NOTICE 2 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 3 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 4 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 5 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 6 time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). 7 This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) 8 failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District 9 Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 10 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 11 Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any 12 change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, 13 or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may 14 result in dismissal of the action. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25