Gregory v. Google et al
| Stuart Todd Gregory |
| Google, Barrack Obama, University of Hawaii and Security Guard |
| 1:2021cv00482 |
| December 6, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Hawaii |
| Hawaii Office |
| KENNETH J MANSFIELD |
| SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY |
| WES REBER PORTER |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 9, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 EO: On February 2, 2022, this court dismissed Plaintiff Stuart Gregory's Amended Complaint in light of his failure to pay the applicable filing fee or to submit a new in forma pauperis application. Judgment was entered that same day. See ECF Nos. 9 and #10 . On February 8, 2022, Gregory submitted another "Complaint for a Civil Case." This court strikes that document in light of the judgment already entered in this case. Should Gregory want to proceed with any of the claims asserted in the stricken document, he may file a new Complaint in a new action, along with paying the applicable filing fee or submitting an in forma pauperis application. If the claims in any new Complaint are the same as the claims asserted in this action, Gregory should indicate that the new Complaint is related to this action, 21cv482, in Section VIII of the Civil Cover Sheet. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Gregory a copy of Forms Pro Se 1 (Complaint for a Civil Cause), AO 240 (Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs, also known as the in forma pauperis application), and JS 44 (Civil Cover Sheet). All of these forms are available at https://www.hid.uscourts.gov/dsp_Forms.cfm?CatID=2&SubCatID=5&pid=27&mid=113. (JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY)(cib)COURTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Non-Registered CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the (NEF). Pro Se (Non-Prisoner) Litigants that have consented to receive documents and Notices of Electronic Filings by email, have been served electronically at the e-mail address listed on the (NEF) |
| COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - a copy of 12 EO, Forms Pro Se 1 (Complaint for a Civil Cause), AO 240 (Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs, also known as the in forma pauperis application), and JS 44 (Civil Cover Sheet) has been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on Stuart Todd Gregory. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (cib) |
| Filing 11 (AMENDED) COMPLAINT FOR A CIVIL CASE against All Defendants - filed by Stuart Todd Gregory (Attachments: #1 Transmittal Letter, #2 Mailing Envelope) (jo) |
| COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - a copy of #10 Clerk's Judgment has been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on Stuart Todd Gregory. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (cib) |
| Filing 10 CLERK'S JUDGMENT entered on 2/2/2022 re 9 . (cib)COURTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Non-Registered CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the (NEF). Pro Se (Non-Prisoner) Litigants that have consented to receive documents and Notices of Electronic Filings by email, have been served electronically at the e-mail address listed on the (NEF) |
| Filing 9 EO: Mr. Gregory was given leave to file an Amended Complaint and to pay the applicable filing fee or to submit a new in forma pauperis application. When Mr. Gregory filed an Amended Complaint but failed to pay the applicable filing fee or to submit a new in forma pauperis application, this court informed Mr. Gregory that he had to correct that failure no later then January 28, 2022, and that failure to do so would result in the automatic dismissal of the Amended Complaint and closure of this case. Mr. Gregory has not timely paid the applicable filing fee or submitted a new in forma pauperis application. Accordingly, this court dismisses the Amended Complaint and orders the Clerk of Court to close this case. See Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th Cir. 1995) (indicating that district court has authority to dismiss a complaint for failure to pay partial filing fee). The court notes that it may dismiss sua sponte an action for failure to comply with court rules or orders or to prosecute the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 63031 (1962); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005). In determining whether dismissal is appropriate, district courts consider the following five factors: (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 the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 890 (9th Cir. 2019). In light of Mr. Gregory's failure to pay the applicable filing fee or to submit a new in forma pauperis application, this court determines that the relevant factors favor dismissal. (JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY)(cib)COURTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Non-Registered CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the (NEF). Pro Se (Non-Prisoner) Litigants that have consented to receive documents and Notices of Electronic Filings by email, have been served electronically at the e-mail address listed on the (NEF) |
| COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - a copy of 9 EO has been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on Stuart Todd Gregory. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (cib) |
| Filing 8 EO: The Court CONTINUES the Telephonic Rule 16 Scheduling Conference set for 1/31/2022 to 4/5/2022 at 08:30AM before MAGISTRATE JUDGE WES REBER PORTER via AT&T Connect Audio Conference at 1-888-278-0296 / Access Code: 8224751. (MAGISTRATE JUDGE WES REBER PORTER)(jp)COURTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Non-Registered CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the (NEF). Pro Se (Non-Prisoner) Litigants that have consented to receive documents and Notices of Electronic Filings by email, have been served electronically at the e-mail address listed on the (NEF) |
| Filing 7 EO: On December 15, 2021, this court dismissed Plaintiff Stuart Gregory's Complaint and denied his in forma pauperis application as moot. Gregory was given leave to file an Amended Complaint and to either pay the applicable filing fee or to submit a new in forma pauperis application by January 14, 2022. Failure to file a timely Amended Complaint and to pay the applicable filing fee or submit a new in forma pauperis application would result in the automatic dismissal of this action. See ECF No. #4 . Gregory timely filed an Amended Complaint, but failed to pay the applicable filing fee or submit a new in forma pauperis application. This court will not consider the Amended Complaint until Gregory either pays the applicable filing fee or submits a new in forma pauperis application. No later than January 28, 2022, Gregory shall either pay the applicable filing fee or submit a new in forma pauperis application. Failure to timely do so will result in the dismissal of the Amended Complaint and the closure of this case. (JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY)(cib)COURTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Non-Registered CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the (NEF). Pro Se (Non-Prisoner) Litigants that have consented to receive documents and Notices of Electronic Filings by email, have been served electronically at the e-mail address listed on the (NEF) |
| COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - a copy of 7 EO has been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on Stuart Todd Gregory. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (cib) |
| Filing 6 (AMENDED) COMPLAINT FOR A CIVIL CASE against All Defendants - filed by Stuart Todd Gregory (Attachments: #1 Mailing Envelope) (jo) |
Filing 5
ORDER OF RECUSAL - Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE KENNETH J. MANSFIELD on 12/21/2021. MAGISTRATE JUDGE KENNETH J. MANSFIELD recused. Case reassigned to MAGISTRATE JUDGE WES REBER PORTER for all further proceedings. Please reflect Civil Case Number CV 21-00482 SOM-WRP on all further pleadings. (jo)COURT'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Stuart Todd Gregory will be served by First Class Mail on December 22, 2021 to the address of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF).
|
|
Filing 4
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT; ORDER DENYING AS MOOT APPLICATION TO PROCEED INFORMA PAUPERIS re #1 , #2 - Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 12/15/2021.Gregory's Complaint is dismissed, and the IFP Application is denied as moot. The court grants Gregory leave to file an Amended Complaint that states a viable claim no later than January 14, 2022. Gregory may submit another IFP Application at that time. Failure to file an Amended Complaint by January 14, 2022, as well as to pay the applicable filing fee or submit a new IFP Application, will result in the automatic dismissal of this action. The court provides some guidance to Gregory if he decides to file an Amended Complaint. First, Gregory should attempt to write as legibly as possible and should avoid writing words haphazardly on pages. If this court cannot read Gregory's writing or follow his thought process, important information may be missed. If Gregory uses a court form, he may, of course, submit additional pages in lieu of writing words all over the form in a manner that makes it difficult to understand.Second, Gregory should state in simple language what each Defendant allegedly did and what statute, law, or duty was supposedly breached by the particular Defendant. In other words, Gregory should allege facts with respect to what each Defendant allegedly did and what each Defendant should be held liable for.Finally, Gregory should articulate the relief he is seeking. That is, if he is seeking monetary damages, he should say so clearly and identify the Defendant(s) from whom he is seeking such damages.(cib)COURTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Non-Registered CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the (NEF). Pro Se (Non-Prisoner) Litigants that have consented to receive documents and Notices of Electronic Filings by email, have been served electronically at the e-mail address listed on the (NEF)
|
| COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - a copy of #4 Order has been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on Stuart Todd Gregory. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (cib) |
|
Filing 3
Order Setting Telephonic Rule 16 Scheduling Conference for 09:30 AM on 1/31/2022 before MAGISTRATE JUDGE KENNETH J. MANSFIELD - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT on 12/6/2021. (Attachments: #1 Memo from Clerk Re: Corporate Disclosures) (jo)
|
| Filing 2 APPLICATION To Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Short Form) - filed by Plaintiff Stuart Todd Gregory (jo) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT FOR A CIVIL CASE against All Defendants - filed by Stuart Todd Gregory (jo) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
