Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chun v. Hawaii State Family Court Rules Under Nakashima

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

August 20, 2018

CURTIS P. CHUN, Plaintiff,
v.
HAWAII STATE FAMILY COURT RULES UNDER THE HONORABLE JUDGE STEVEN M. NAKASHIMA, Defendant.

          ORDER DISMISSING CASE

          DERRICK K. WATSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         INTRODUCTION

         In a June 13, 2018 Order, the Court granted Chun's Application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his First Amended Complaint with limited leave to amend. Dkt. No. 12 (6/13/18 Order). On July 12 and again on July 26, 2018, the Court granted Chun's requests for extensions of time, Dkt. Nos. 16 and 20, and twice extended the deadline for filing his Second Amended Complaint, ultimately until August 13, 2018, cautioning him that “no further extensions will be granted absent good cause shown” and that the failure the file an amended complaint by the deadline may “result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice.” Dkt. Nos. 17 and 21. Despite the extensions of time, Chun has yet to file an amended complaint or respond to the Court's June 13, 2018 Order in any other fashion. As a result, this action is dismissed without prejudice.

         Courts 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.

         The Court's 6/13/18 Order was clear:

[B]ecause Chun fails to state a plausible claim for relief, the FAC is DISMISSED. Because amendment of certain claims may be possible, Chun is granted limited leave to attempt to cure the deficiencies noted in this Order, with instructions below.
****
Portions of the FAC are dismissed without prejudice, and Chun is granted leave to amend to attempt to cure the deficiencies identified above. Chun's claims against Judge Nakashima are dismissed with prejudice. The Court cautions Chun that he may not re-allege those claims in any amended complaint.
****
The amended complaint must designate that it is the “Second Amended Complaint” and may not incorporate any part of the prior complaint. Rather, any specific allegations must be retyped or rewritten in their entirety. Chun may include only one claim per count. Failure to file an amended complaint by July 16, 2018 will result in the automatic dismissal of this action without prejudice.
Based upon the foregoing, Chun's IFP Application is GRANTED (Dkt. No. 7), and the FAC is DISMISSED with limited leave to amend (Dkt. No. 9).
Chun is granted leave to file an amended complaint in accordance with the terms of this Order by July 16, 2018. To be clear, claims dismissed with prejudice may not be re-alleged in an amended complaint. The Court CAUTIONS Chun that failure to file an amended complaint by July 16, 2018 may result in the automatic dismissal of this action without prejudice.

         6/13/18 Order at 12-14.

         On July 12, 2018, the Court granted Chun's request and extended the deadline for filing his Second Amended Complaint to July 30, 2018. “The Court caution[ed] Chun that failure to file an amended complaint by 7/30/18 may result in the automatic dismissal of this action without prejudice.” 7/12/18 Entering Order, Dkt. No. 17. The Court granted Chun a further extension on July 26, 2018, and advised that “[n]o further extensions will be granted absent good cause shown. The Court caution[ed] Chun that failure to file an amended complaint by 8/13/18 may result in the automatic dismissal of this action without prejudice.” 7/26/18 Entering Order, Dkt. No. 21. Chun's failure to comply with the 6/13/18 Order, and the 7/12/18 and 7/26/18 Entering Orders hinders the Court's ability to move this case forward and indicates that he does not intend to litigate ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.