United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
Derrick K. Watson, Judge
March 24, 2016, Plaintiff Rodney-Emile Piedvache, proceeding
pro se, filed a Complaint against the Governor of the State
of Hawaii and his wife; members of the Hawaii congressional
delegation and their spouses; the County of Hawaii Police
Department and individual officers involved in his arrest for
failure to comply with drivers' licensing and motor
vehicle registration requirements; and the Hawaii Tribune
Herald newspaper, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §
1983, copyright law, and criminal law. In a November 2, 2016
Order, the Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss
and granted Piedvache limited leave to file an amended
complaint by no later than November 28, 2016. Dkt. No. 42.
Piedvache has yet to file an amended complaint or respond to
the Court's November 2, 2016 Order in any other fashion.
As a result, this action is dismissed without prejudice.
have the authority to 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 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)).
careful consideration of these factors, the Court concludes
that dismissal is warranted under the
circumstances. The Court's November 2, 2016 Order was
The dismissal of the following claims is without prejudice:
Section 1983 claim based upon violations of the Fourth and
Eighth Amendments; Section 1986 claim; and civil RICO claim.
Piedvache is granted limited leave to amend only these claims
in order to attempt to cure the deficiencies identified
above. To be clear, any amended complaint may not re-allege
copyright or criminal law claims dismissed with prejudice by
this order or any official-capacity claims for damages
against Senator Schatz, Senator Hirono, Congresswoman
Gabbard, or Governor Ige.
Failure to file an amended complaint by November 28, 2016
will result in the automatic dismissal of this action without
Piedvache is granted limited leave to file an amended
complaint in accordance with the terms of this order by no
later than November 28, 2016. The Court CAUTIONS Piedvache
that failure to file an amended complaint by November 28,
2016 will result in the automatic dismissal of this action
11/2/16 Order at 24-27 (Dkt. No. 42).
failure to comply with the Court's order hinders the
Court's ability to move this case forward and indicates
that he 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.”). This factor favors dismissal.
risk of prejudice to a defendant is related to a
plaintiff's reason for failure to prosecute an action.
See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (citing
Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991). Piedvache offers no
excuse or explanation for his failure to file a First Amended
Complaint. When a party offers a poor excuse (or, in this
case, no 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.
This factor favors dismissal.
policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits
ordinarily weighs against dismissal. However, it is the
responsibility of the moving 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). Piedvache failed to discharge
his responsibility to prosecute this action despite the
Court's express warnings about dismissal in its prior
order. See Dkt. No. 42.
these circumstances, the public policy favoring the
resolution of disputes on the merits does not outweigh
Piedvache's failure to file an amended complaint, as
directed by the Court in its November 2, 2016 Order.
Court attempted to avoid outright dismissal of this action by
granting Piedvache the opportunity to amend his allegations
and providing specific guidance on how to do so. 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.”).
Alternatives to dismissal are not adequate here, given
Piedvache's voluntary failure to comply with the
Court's order. Under the present circumstances, less
drastic alternatives are not appropriate. The Court
acknowledges that the public policy favoring disposition of
cases on their merits weighs against dismissal. On balance,
however, because four factors favor dismissal, this factor is
basis of the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES this action
without prejudice and directs the ...