Mahe v. Dunbar ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 JASON A. MAHE, Case No. 3:21-CV-00355-MMD-CLB 5 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE1 6 v. 7 JENNIFER DUNBAR, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 This case involves a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff Jason A. Mahe (“Mahe”). 11 Before the Court is Mahe’s failure to comply with Local Rule (“LR”) IA 3-1 requiring him 12 to change his address. 13 On March 20, 2024, the Court entered an order regarding deadlines in this case. 14 (ECF No. 68.) The Court mailed this document to Plaintiff’s address at the Ohio 15 Department of Rehabilitation’s Lorain Correctional Institution. On April 4, 2024, Lorain 16 Correctional Institution returned this document as undeliverable. (ECF No. 69.) From this, 17 it appeared that Mahe was no longer at Lorain Correctional Institution but had not filed a 18 change of address with the Court. Therefore, the Court issued an order requiring Mahe 19 to update his address by June 3, 2024, pursuant to Local Rule IA 3-1. (ECF No. 70.) 20 Mahe was cautioned that his failure to do so would result in a dismissal of this action. (Id.) 21 To date, Mahe has not filed a notice of change of address with the Court. LR IA 3- 22 1 provides that the failure to “immediately file with the Court written notification of any 23 change of address . . . may result in dismissal of the action . . . .” 24 Prior to dismissal for failure to follow local rules, the Court must consider “(1) the 25 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its 26 27 1 This Report and Recommendation is made to the Honorable Miranda M. Du, United States District Judge. The action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate 1| docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition 2| of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Carey v. King, F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 4} (9th Cir. 1986)). This litigation cannot proceed or be decided on the merits if the Court 5 | and Defendants cannot contact Mahe, nor should the Court or Defendants be required to 6 | continue to try to resolve the case without the Mahe’s participation. All five factors clearly 7 | favor dismissal of this case. 8 Based on the foregoing and for good cause appearing, the Court recommends that 9| this case be dismissed based upon Mahe’s failure to notify the Court of his change of address pursuant to LR IA 3-1. 11 The parties are advised: 12 1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Rule IB 3-2 of the Local Rules of 13 Practice, the parties may file specific written objections to this Report and 14| Recommendation within fourteen days of receipt. These objections should be entitled 15| “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation” and should be 16 | accompanied by points and authorities for consideration by the District Court. 17 2. This Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order and any notice 18| of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. 20 RECOMMENDATION 21 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED for Mahe’s failure to comply with LR IA 3-1. 23 | DATED: June 4, 2024. » 24 25 UNITED STATES\MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28