United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
Derrick K. Watson United States District Judge.
October 11, 2017, Plaintiff Paul Bradley Legg, proceeding pro
se, filed several documents, which the Court liberally
construed as a Complaint, alleging fraud and numerous other
grievances against several individuals and entities due to
the “seizure” of certain real property.
See Compl., Dkt. No. 1-1. On November 6, 2017, Legg
filed an Application to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP Application”).In a November 13, 2017 Order,
the Court granted Legg's IFP Application and dismissed
the Complaint, but granted Legg limited leave to file an
amended complaint by no later than December 15, 2017. Dkt.
No. 6 (11/13/17 Order). Legg has yet to file an amended
complaint or request additional time in which to do so, or to
otherwise respond coherently to the Court's November 13,
2017 Order.As a result, this action is dismissed
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.”). More specifically, 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)). Upon careful consideration of these factors, the
Court concludes that dismissal without prejudice is warranted
under the circumstances.
Court's November 13, 2017 Order was clear:
[B]ecause because Legg fails to state a claim, several
defendants are immune from suit, and the Court is without
subject matter jurisdiction, the Court DISMISSES the
Complaint and GRANTS Legg limited leave to file an amended
complaint in accordance with the terms of this order by
December 15, 2017.
Because Legg fails to state a plausible claim for relief, the
Complaint is dismissed. Because amendment may be
possible, dismissal is with leave to amend, as further
The dismissal of the Complaint is without prejudice, and Legg
is granted leave to amend to attempt to cure the deficiencies
identified above. . . . Failure to file an amended complaint
by December 15, 2017 will result in the
automatic dismissal of this action without prejudice.
Based upon the foregoing, the Complaint is DISMISSED with
leave to amend (Dkt. No. 1), the IFP Application is GRANTED
(Dkt. No. 4), and both the Motion for Leave to Amend and the
Motion for Service are DENIED as moot (Dkt. No. 5).
Legg is granted limited leave to file an amended complaint in
accordance with the terms of this order by December
15, 2017. The Court CAUTIONS Legg that failure to
file an amended complaint by December 15,
2017 will result in the automatic dismissal of this
action without prejudice.
11/13/17 Order at 1-2, 12, 16-18.
failure to comply with the November 13, 2017 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). Legg 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 ...