ELIZABETH ANN WALKER v. ALFREDO ARANA SALAZAR (2025)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

This is a pro se appeal from a district court order dismissing a case for want of prosecution.¹ Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Kathleen M. Drakulich, Judge.

In February 2024, the district court ordered respondent Alfredo Salazar to submit documentation establishing his ownership of the subject properties. In that same order, the district court directed appellant Elizabeth Walker to file any challenge she may have to that documentation. Salazar complied and submitted relevant documentation. While Walker submitted various filings, in September 2024, the district court entered an order finding Walker's filings nonresponsive to the February 2024 order and gave Walker 10 days to comply with the February 2024 order.

Thereafter, Salazar moved to dismiss Walker's complaint. In November 2024, the district court granted Salazar's motion. The district court based its decision on Walker's failure to prosecute her case, in that she had not complied with the February 2024 order for over eight months.

On appeal, Walker primarily contends that nonparty Eric Henley—allegedly on Salazar's behalf—destroyed documents that were critical to Walker's prosecution of her claims against Salazar. From there. Walker appears to contend that Henley's conduct supports the allegations in her complaint, such that dismissal was unwarranted.

We are not persuaded that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing Walker's case for want of prosecution. Moore v. Cherry, 90 Nev. 390, 393, 528 P.2d 1018, 1020 (1974) (“Inherent in courts is the power to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or to comply with its orders. To prevent undue delays and to control their calendars, courts may exercise this power within the bounds of sound judicial discretion ․”). Namely, it does not appear from the record that Walker brought Henley's alleged misconduct to the district court's attention, meaning the district court could not have considered that alleged misconduct in dismissing Walker's complaint. Cf. Old. Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981) (recognizing that we do not generally entertain an argument raised for the first time on appeal). Moreover, although Walker contends that Henley destroyed documents supporting Walker's case, it stands to reason that Walker would have had those documents in her possession when she filed her complaint. See NRCP (11)(a)-(b) (requiring generally that parties filing a complaint have evidence to support the claims alleged in the complaint); Rodriguez v. Fiesta Paints, LLC, 134 Nev. 654. 659, 428 P.3d 255, 259 (2018) (observing that pro se litigants are bound by the “basic procedural requirements” ’ that litigation entails). Consistent with the foregoing, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Herndon, C.J.

Bell, J.

Stiglich, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Having considered the pro se brief filed by appellant, we conclude that a response is not necessary. NRAP 46A(c). And we further conclude that the pro se documents filed after the pro se brief do not warrant any relief.