Young v. States of Hawaii District Court Judges et al
Petitioner: Christopher Young
Respondent: States of Hawaii District Court Judges and Administrators of the State of Colorado
Case Number: 1:2020cv00335
Filed: July 31, 2020
Court: US District Court for the District of Hawaii
Presiding Judge: ROM TRADER
Referring Judge: DERRICK K WATSON
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on August 30, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
August 30, 2020 Filing 13 EO: On August 26, 2020, pro se Plaintiff Christopher Young filed a "Notice of the Maxims of equity of the Suit as a Special Cause." Dkt. No. 12. The substance of the filing is unintelligible but, liberally construed, Young appears to request (a) reconsideration of the August 6, 2020 Order dismissing this action with leave to amend, Dkt. No. 7, and the Order and Judgment dismissing this case for failure to comply with the Court's August 6, 2020 Order and failure to prosecute, Dkt. Nos. 10, 11; and (b) that the Court "void all Orders in this matter and have this case removed from the docket, for the lack of any Jurisdiction over your orator and the subject matter[.]" See Dkt. No. 12 at 1, 3. First, Young has not identified any cognizable basis for reconsideration or setting aside a judgment under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). See United Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009); Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). As for Young's jurisdictional challenge, Young voluntarily filed this lawsuit and subject-matter jurisdiction was proper by virtue of Young having asserted "due process" claims "arising under the [C]onstitution of the United States." Dkt. No. 1 at 3 ("[Y]our orator does hereby grant all in personam and subject matter jurisdiction to this court."); 28 U.S.C. 1331. Accordingly, Young's motion, Dkt. No. 12, is DENIED. No further filings will be accepted in this closed case. IT IS SO ORDERED. (JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON)(tyk)
August 30, 2020 COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - a copy of Docket No. 13 has been served by First Class Mail to Christopher Young at the address of record on August 31, 2020. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (tyk)
August 26, 2020 Filing 12 Notice of the Maxims of equity of the Suit as a Special Cause - by Petitioner Christopher Young. Petitioner requests that all orders must be voided and this matter removed from the docket for lack of jurisdiction, see page 3. (Attachments: #1 Mailing Documentation) (emt, )
August 19, 2020 COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - a copy of ECF No. #10 ORDER DISMISSING CASE and ECF No. #11 Clerk's Judgment shall be served by First Class Mail to Christopher Young at the address of record on August 19, 2020. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (emt, )
August 18, 2020 Filing 11 CLERK'S JUDGMENT entered on 8/18/2020 pursuant to ECF No. #7 ORDER (1) DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES OR COSTS; (2) DENYING MOTION TO SEAL; AND (3) DISMISSING ACTION WITH LEAVE TO AMEND and ECF No. #10 ORDER DISMISSING CASE. (emt, )
August 18, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 10 ORDER DISMISSING CASE re #1 - Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 8/18/2020. In summary, with four of the five factors favoring dismissal, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with the August 6, 2020 Order and failure to prosecute. See Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 133 n.2 (9th Cir. 1987) (concluding that, when the other factors favor dismissal, they are not outweighed by the public policy in favor of resolving a case on the merits); see also Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 497 (9th Cir. 1984) (explaining that "dismissal without prejudice is a more easily justified sanction for failure to prosecute."). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case. (emt, )
August 13, 2020 Filing 9 EO: On August 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed a virtually unintelligible document (Dkt. No. 8) that, as best the Court can discern, seeks to have this action reassigned because the undersigned is not an Article III Judge under the United States Constitution. Plaintiff needs to improve his research skills. The request is both factually wrong and frivolous. Similarly, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to have the Magistrate Judge reassigned, that request is denied as well. Magistrate Judges, including the one assigned to this case, have broad authority to act in civil actions, even without the consent of the parties. See LR73.1. IT IS SO ORDERED. (JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON)(tyk)
August 13, 2020 COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - a copy of 9 Order on Motion to Reassign Case and Motion for Reconsideration has been served by First Class Mail to Christopher Young at the address of record on August 13, 2020. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (tyk)
August 11, 2020 Filing 8 Notice of the Maxims of equity of the Suit as a Special Cause re #7 - by Petitioner Christopher Young. (Attachments: #1 Mailing Documentation) (emt, )
August 6, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER (1) DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES OR COSTS; (2) DENYING MOTION TO SEAL; AND (3) DISMISSING ACTION WITH LEAVE TO AMEND re #1 , #2 , #3 - Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 8/6/2020. Young's "Motion Requesting Waiver of All Unjust Coasts [sic]," Dkt. No. 3, construed as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, is DENIED. Young's Motion to Seal, Dkt. No. 2, is DENIED. This action is DISMISSED with leave to amend as set forth herein. Young may have until August 17, 2020 to file an amended complaint. The Court cautions Young that failure to file an amended complaint by August 17, 2020 may result in the automatic dismissal of this action without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to mail Young: (1) a copy of form "Pro Se 1" "Complaint for a Civil Case"; and (2) a blank Application to Proceed In District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (AO 240) and the accompanying instruction sheet so that he may comply with this Order. (emt, )
August 6, 2020 COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - a copy of the #7 ORDER (1) DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES OR COSTS; (2) DENYING MOTION TO SEAL; AND (3) DISMISSING ACTION WITH LEAVE TO AMEND shall be served by First Class Mail to Christopher Young at the address of record on August 6, 2020. The following forms shall be included in the mailing to Mr. Young: "Pro Se 1" "Complaint for a Civil Case" and an "Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs" (AO 240). (emt, )
August 4, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 6 Order Setting Rule 16 Scheduling Conference is set for 09:00AM on 10/5/2020 before MAGISTRATE JUDGE ROM TRADER - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT on 8/4/2020. (Attachments: #1 Memo from Clerk Re: Corporate Disclosures) (emt, )
August 4, 2020 COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - a copy of #6 Order Setting Rule 16 Scheduling Conference, shall be served by First Class Mail to Christopher Young at the address of record on August 5, 2020. (emt, )
July 31, 2020 Filing 5 Letter ("Lodged and Sealed by Private Appointment of Supervisor or Head Clerk of the Office of the Register of Chancery") from Christopher Young. (emt, )
July 31, 2020 Filing 4 Cover Letter to Special Clerk and Master from Christopher Young re ("...we request the following special requirements by this honorable court be met in order to protect and preserve the ends of justice and the rights of and interests of the parties in this suit.."). (emt, )
July 31, 2020 Filing 3 MOTION Requesting Waiver of All Unjust Coasts Under Maxims of Equity # 8 Equity Abhors a Forfeiture - by Petitioner Christopher Young. (emt, )
July 31, 2020 Filing 2 MOTION Requesting Leave of the Court to Enter into the Original Exclusive Jurisdiction of this Court Under Maxims of Equity and Petition to Seal All Cases Involved, Ex Parte - by Petitioner Christopher Young. (emt, )
July 31, 2020 Filing 1 COMPLAINT (Notice of the Laws of the Suit as a Special Cause) against Administrators of the State of Colorado, States of Hawaii District Court Judges - filed by Christopher Young. (Attachments: #1 Mailing Documentation) (emt, )

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Hawaii District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Young v. States of Hawaii District Court Judges et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: States of Hawaii District Court Judges
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Administrators of the State of Colorado
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Christopher Young
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?