United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
E. KOBAYASHI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
January 22, 2018, the magistrate judge filed his Findings and
Recommendation to Grant Defendants' Motion for Sanctions
Against Plaintiff (“1/22/18 F&R”). [Dkt. no.
152.] On January 24, 2018, the magistrate judge filed an
entering order as a supplement to the 1/22/18 F&R
(“1/24/18 F&R Supplement”). [Dkt. no. 154.]
On February 16, 2018, this Court filed an order adopting the
1/22/18 F&R, as modified by the 1/24/18 F&R
Supplement (“2/16/18 Order”). [Dkt. no. 155.]
March 9, 2018 pro se Plaintiff Christopher Young
(“Plaintiff”) filed a document titled
Verification of Plaintiff's Objection to Judge Kevin S.C.
Chang's Findings and Recommendation to Grant
Defendants' Motion for Sanctions and Dismissal Against
Plaintiff [Dkt. No. 152] ¶ 01/22/18 and Judge Leslie E.
Kobayashi's Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's
Findings and Recommendation [Dkt. No. 155] ¶ 2/16/18 for
Failure to Address Proof of Evidence in the Record 1-155.
[Dkt. no. 156.] Plaintiff's filing has been construed as
a motion for reconsideration of the 2/16/18 Order
(“Motion for Reconsideration”). [EO: Court Order
Regarding Pltf.'s “Objection” Filed on March
9, 2017 [sic], filed 3/12/18 (dkt. no. 157).] The Court has
considered the Motion for Reconsideration as non-hearing
matter pursuant to Rule LR7.2(e) of the Local Rules of
Practice of the United States District Court for the District
of Hawai`i. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is
hereby denied for the reasons set forth below.
parties and this Court are familiar with the factual and
procedural background of this case, and only the background
relevant to the Motion for Reconsideration will be repeated
time of the 1/22/18 F&R, Defendants Michael M. Kraus and
Tree Works, Inc. (“the Tree Works Defendants”)
were the only remaining defendants in this case. See
Order Denying the Portion of Pltf.'s Motion Seeking
Reconsideration of this Court's January 27, 2017 Order
and Denying Without Prejudice the Portion of the Motion
Attempting to Appeal the Order or Rulings Issued by the
Magistrate Judge, filed 2/17/17 (dkt. no. 111)
(“2/17/17 Reconsideration Order”), at 9
(terminating Defendants the County of Hawai`i, the County of
Hawai`i Police Department, and Patrick T. Kihara as
1/22/18 F&R recommended that this Court grant the Tree
Works Defendants' Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff
(“Motion for Sanctions”), [filed 12/5/17 (dkt.
no. 142)]. The Tree Works Defendants sought dismissal of
Plaintiff's claims against them on the ground that
Plaintiff failed to comply with orders filed on June 23,
2017, October 12, 2017, and November 7, 2017. [Motion for
Sanctions at 2; Mem. in Supp. of Motion for Sanctions at 7.]
Plaintiff did not file a memorandum in opposition to the
Motion for Sanctions, but presented arguments at the January
22, 2018 hearing on the Motion for Sanctions. [Minutes, filed
1/22/18 (dkt. no. 151).]
1/22/18 F&R, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff's
failure to comply with multiple court orders “resulted
in additional motions practice and . . . interfer[ed] with
the orderly progression of this action.” [1/22/18
F&R at 7.] In addition, Plaintiff's “abusive
and unfounded use of the appeals process . . . impede[d] the
proceedings.” [Id.] The burdensome delays
caused by Plaintiff's tactics “threaten[ed] to
interfere with the rightful decision of the case, ” and
further delays “would be unduly prejudicial” to
the Tree Works Defendants. [Id. at 8.] The
magistrate judge also found prior attempts to discourage
Plaintiff's tactics through sanctions less drastic than
dismissal were unsuccessful. The magistrate judge therefore
recommended dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against the
Tree Works Defendants and an award of attorney's fees
incurred in connection with the Motion for Sanctions.
[Id. at 9-10.] The 1/24/18 F&R Supplement
recommended the Tree Works Defendants be awarded $826.50 in
attorney's fees. [Dkt. no. 154.] As previously noted, the
2/16/18 Order adopted the 1/22/18 F&R, as modified by the
1/24/18 F&R Supplement.
instant Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff argues
reconsideration of the 2/16/18 Order is warranted because:
this Court, the magistrate judge, the defendants, and defense
counsel are corrupt; the 1/22/18 F&R did not address all
of the relevant evidence in this case; this case was
improperly removed from state court; the Ninth Circuit is
also corrupt, and this case has been improperly allowed to
proceed while Plaintiff's Ninth Circuit appeals were
pending; Kraus's liability for the injuries Plaintiff
suffered in the motor vehicle accident at issue in this case
has never been addressed; Kihara's liability for failing
to issue a citation regarding the accident has not been
addressed; and this case presents many issues regarding the
violation of Hawai`i insurance laws, which should be
addressed in the state courts.
2/16/18 Order was a case dispositive order. In light of
Plaintiff's pro se status, his Motion for Reconsideration
is liberally construed as a Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion.
See, e.g., Pregana v. CitiMortgage, Inc.,
Civil No. 14-00226 DKW-KSC, 2015 WL 1966671, at *2 (D.
Hawai`i Apr. 30, 2015) (“The Court liberally construes
the [plaintiffs'] filings because they are proceeding pro
se.” (citing Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132,
1137 (9th Cir. 1987))).
59(e) states: “A motion to alter or amend a judgment
must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the
judgment.” Plaintiffs may seek reconsideration pursuant
to Rule 59(e), even though final judgment has not been
entered in this case. See Grandinetti v. Sells, CIV.
NO. 16-00517 DKW/RLP, 2016 WL 6634868, at *1 (D. Hawai`i Nov.
8, 2016) (“When a ruling has resulted in a final
judgment or order . . . a motion for reconsideration may be
construed as either a motion to alter or amend judgment under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or a ...