Perez v. North Las Vegas ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Jose Abel Perez, 2:24-cv-00918-GMN-MDC 4 Plaintiff(s), ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND DENYING 5 vs. EX PARTE MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 6 North Las Vegas, 7 Defendant(s). 8 On May 10, 2024, plaintiff filed a Motion/Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) 9 (ECF No. 1), but did not file a Complaint. On June 6, 2024, the Court denied his IFP application because 10 (1) plaintiff failed to provide a financial certificate signed by both him and a prison or jail official; and 11 (2) plaintiff failed to provide an inmate trust fund account statement for the previous six-month period. 12 ECF No. 3 at 2. The Court ordered plaintiff to file a new IFP application by July 3, 2024. Id. at 3. The 13 Court also ordered plaintiff to file his complaint by the same date. Id. Plaintiff partially complied with 14 the Court’s Order and filed a new IFP application on June 24, 2024. See ECF No. 4. However, plaintiff 15 failed to submit a Complaint. Instead, plaintiff filed a Notice of Filing Error, stating that he had filed a 16 Complaint which was issued a case number of “2:24-ms-00001.” See ECF No. 6. The Court notified 17 plaintiff that the “filing error” was because he did not include the case number when he initially filed the 18 complaint. ECF No. 7 at 1. The document was marked with “2:24-ms-00001” which is given to 19 correspondence returns. Id. Therefore, a complaint was never filed on the docket in plaintiff’s assigned 20 case number “2:24-cv-00918-GMN-MDC.” Id. 21 The Court gave plaintiff another chance to file his Complaint and sent him a copy of the Order 22 (ECF No. 7) and instructions and forms for filing a § 1983 complaint. The Court also a copy of a 23 complaint which matched plaintiff’s description in his Notice. See ECF Nos. 6 and 7. Plaintiff was 24 ordered to submit his Complaint, with the correct case number, by July 26, 2024. ECF No. 7 at 1. 25 Plaintiff was warned that failing to timely comply with the Court’s Order may result in a 1 || recommendation that the case be dismissed. /d. Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Motion for Appointment of 2 || Counsel (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff, however, failed to comply with the Court’s Order and has not filed a 3 || complaint. There is no indication that plaintiff did not receive the Order (1.e., mail returned as 4 || undeliverable or otherwise). 5 6 ACCORDINGLY, 7 IT IS ORDERED that: 8 1. Plaintiff show cause by September 5, 2024, as to why his case should not be dismissed for 9 failing to comply with the Court’s Order (ECF No. 7). Failure to timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation that the case be dismissed. 10 2. Plaintiff submit his Complaint by September 5, 2024. Failure to timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation that the case be dismissed. 12 3. The Clerk of the Court is kindly directed to send to Plaintiff a copy of this Order, the approved form for filing a § 1983 complaint, and instructions for the same. 14 4. If Plaintiff files a complaint, the Clerk of Court is directed NOT to issue summons on the 15 complaint. The Court will issue a screening order on the complaint and address the issuance 16 of summons at that time, if applicable. 17 5. Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 5) is DENIED. 18 ’ ay _ DATED this 3° day of August 2024. Aff a 19 / IT IS SO ORDERED. ip // \ 20 if if —f4____{f__ = 41 Hon. Maximilyano I}. Couvillier III United States (Magistrate Judge 22 23 NOTICE 24 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 25 || recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 1 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 2 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 3 time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). 4 This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) 5 failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District 6 Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 7 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 8 Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any 9 change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, 10 or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may 11 result in dismissal of the action. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25