United States District Court, D. Hawaii
WILLIAM K. OYADOMARI, Plaintiff,
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
DERRICK K. WATSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
March 30, 2016, Plaintiff William K. Oyadomari, proceeding
pro se, filed a Complaint alleging that Defendant Charles
Wilson cashed Oyadomari's Social Security check without
permission while Oyadomari was incarcerated. Dkt. No. 1. On
April 8, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued his Findings and
Recommendation ("F&R"), suggesting that the Court
dismiss this action without prejudice and deny
Oyadomari's Application to Proceed in District Court
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs ("Application").
Dkt. No. 5. On May 12, 2016, the Court adopted the April 8,
2016 F&R, dismissed the action without prejudice, and denied
Oyadomari's Application. Dkt. No. 7. The Court permitted
Oyadomari leave to file an amended complaint by June 10,
2016. Dkt. No. 7 at 7. As of the date of this order,
Oyadomari has not filed an amended complaint. Because
Oyadomari has failed to comply with the Court's order,
this action is DISMISSED.
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) grants district courts the
authority to sua sponte dismiss actions for failure
to prosecute or for failure to comply with court orders.
See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31
(1962) ("The power to invoke this sanction is necessary
in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of
pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the
District Courts."). The court has discretion to dismiss
a plaintiff's action for failure to comply with an order
requiring him or her to file an amended pleading within a
specified time period. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291
F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). Before dismissing an action
for failure to prosecute, the court must weigh: "(1) the
public's interest in expeditious resolution of
litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket;
(3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the
availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public
policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits."
Id. at 642 (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963
F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)). Upon careful
consideration of these factors, the Court concludes that
dismissal is warranted under the circumstances.
Expeditious Resolution and Need to Manage Docket
Court's May 12, 2016 Order was clear: "Oyadomari is
granted leave to file an amended complaint by no later than
June 10, 2016. The Court cautions Oyadomari that the failure
to file an amended complaint, along with the required filing
fee or a fully executed application to proceed without
prepayment of fees by June 10, 2016, will result in the
automatic dismissal of this action." Dkt. No. 7 at 7.
The Court unambiguously advised Oyadomari that he must file
an amended complaint by June 10, 2016, or risk dismissal of
the action. Oyadomari's failure to do so hinders the
Court's ability to move this case forward and indicates
that Oyadomari does not intend to litigate this action
diligently. See Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191
F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) ("The public's
interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always
favors dismissal."). Accordingly, the public's
interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, and the
Court's need to manage its docket both favor dismissal.
Prejudice to Defendant
risk of prejudice to a defendant is related to the
plaintiff's reason for failure to prosecute an action.
See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (citing
Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991). When a party offers a
poor excuse for failing to comply with a court's order,
the prejudice to the opposing party is sufficient to favor
dismissal. See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991-92. Here,
Oyadomari offers no excuse, much less an unsatisfactory one,
to explain his failure to file an amended complaint. This
factor favors dismissal.
Availability of Less Drastic Alternatives
Court attempted to avoid outright dismissal of this action by
giving Oyadomari 29 days leave to amend. See Henderson v.
Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) ("The
district court need not exhaust every sanction short of
dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore
possible and meaningful alternatives."). Additional time
beyond the June 10, 2016 deadline has now passed.
Alternatives to dismissal are not appropriate given
Oyadomari's failure to meaningfully participate in his
public policy favors the disposition of cases on their
merits, it is the responsibility of the complaining party to
prosecute the action at a reasonable pace and to refrain from
dilatory and evasive tactics. See Morris v. Morgan
Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir.1991).
Oyadomari failed to discharge these responsibilities, despite
the Court's express warning about the possibility of
dismissal. The Court acknowledges that public policy favors
disposing of cases on their merits. However, because four of
the Ferdik factors favor dismissal, this lone factor
is outweighed by the others.
foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this action. The Clerk
of the ...