United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
DERRICK K. WATSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
August 20, 2018, Plaintiff Crystal Carpenter, proceeding pro
se, filed a Complaint against numerous government employees,
private individuals and entities alleging violations of her
civil rights. In an August 27, 2018 Order, the Court granted
Carpenter's in forma pauperis application and
dismissed the Complaint with limited leave to amend. Dkt. No.
6 (8/27/18 Order). The 8/27/18 Order granted Carpenter until
September 24, 2018 to file an amended complaint. As of the
date of this order, however, Carpenter has yet to file an
amended complaint or respond to the Court's 8/27/18 Order
in any other fashion. 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 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 without prejudice is warranted
under the circumstances.
Court's 8/27/18 Order was clear:
The dismissal of the Complaint is without prejudice, and
Carpenter is granted limited leave to amend to attempt to
cure the deficiencies identified above.
Failure to file an amended complaint by September 24,
2018 will result in the automatic dismissal of this
action without prejudice.
Based upon the foregoing, Carpenter's IFP Application is
GRANTED (Dkt. No. 3), and the Complaint is DISMISSED with
limited leave to amend (Dkt. No. 1).
Carpenter is granted limited leave to file an amended
complaint in accordance with the terms of this Order by
September 24, 2018. The Court CAUTIONS
Carpenter that failure to file an amended complaint by
September 24, 2018 will result in the
automatic dismissal of this action without prejudice.
Order at 11-13. Carpenter's failure to comply with the
8/27/18 Order hinders the Court's ability to move this
case forward and indicates that she 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
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). Carpenter offers no
excuse or explanation for her 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). Carpenter failed to discharge
her responsibility to prosecute this action despite the
Court's express warnings about dismissal in its prior
order. See 8/27/18 Order at 11-13. Under these
circumstances, the public policy favoring the resolution ...