Malori v. Oahu Community Correctional Center (OCCC) et al
| Roberta Malori |
| Oahu Community Correctional Center (OCCC), ACO Timoteo, ACO Tiffany Kaaihue and ACO Decambra |
| Shelley Harrington and Laurie Nadamoto |
| 1:2022cv00023 |
| January 10, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Hawaii |
| WES REBER PORTER |
| DERRICK K WATSON |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 8, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 Prisoner Mail Returned as Undeliverable (re ECF No. 4 Entering Order). Mail sent to Roberta Malori at Oahu Community Correctional Center returned undelivered (inmate discharged). On March 3, 2022, the Clerk's Office resent the Entering Order to Roberta Malori at 50 Ward Avenue # 106, Honolulu, HI 96816. (eta) |
| COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - a copy of 4 Entering Order and #5 Clerk's Judgment shall be resent by First Class Mail to Roberta Malori at 350 Ward Avenue # 106, Honolulu, HI 96816 on March 3, 2022. A Notice of Change of Address was filed in CV 21-00420 LEK-KJM and CV 22-00050 JMS-KJM on March 2, 2022. (eta) |
| Filing 6 Prisoner Mail Returned as Undeliverable (re ECF Nos. 4 Entering Order, #5 Clerk's Judgment). Mail sent to Roberta Malori at Oahu Community Correctional Center returned undelivered (inmate discharged). (Attachments: #1 ECF No. 4 Entering Order, #2 ECF No. 5 Clerk's Judgment) (eta) |
| Filing 5 CLERK'S JUDGMENT entered on 2/17/2022 pursuant to ECF No. 4 . (eta)COURT'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Roberta Malori served by First Class Mail to the address of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) on February 17, 2022. A copy of ECF No. 4 shall be included in the mailing to Plaintiff. |
| Filing 4 EO: A district court 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. Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 890 (9th Cir. 2019). On January 13, 2022, the Court mailed to Plaintiff a Deficiency Order [ECF No. 2]. Plaintiff had until February 10, 2022, to pay the filing fee or to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP application"). The Court warned Plaintiff that any failure to pay the filing fee or to submit a complete IFP application would result in dismissal of this suit [ECF No. 2]. Although the February 10, 2022 deadline has passed, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or submitted the required application form. In view of Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee or submit an IFP application, the Court finds that the relevant factors support dismissal of this action. The public's interest in expeditious resolution of this litigation strongly favors dismissal, as does the Court's need to manage its docket. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639 642 (9th Cir. 2002). Moreover, there is no risk of prejudice to Defendants. Finally, there are currently no less drastic alternatives available. The Court recognizes that the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits weighs against dismissal. Nevertheless, considering the totality of the circumstances and because the other factors favor dismissal, this factor is outweighed.In her "Requesting an Extension Upon My Release" [ECF No. 3], Plaintiff states that it is "impossible for [her] to respect any due date and to be able to fulfill all requirements," and she asks to "[reschedule] everything[]" until she is released from custody. That request is DENIED. Should Plaintiff wish to pursue any of the claims asserted in this this action, she must do so by initiating a new civil action, which, among other things, would require either paying the filing fee or submitting an IFP application.This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. (JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON)(tyk)COURTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Non-Registered CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (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 3 REQUEST for an Extension Upon My Release to Proceed With All Above Cases - by Plaintiff Roberta Malori (Attachments: #1 Cover Sheet, #2 Mailing Documentation)(eta) |
Filing 2
DEFICIENCY ORDER - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT on 1/13/2022. (eta)COURT'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Roberta Malori served by First Class Mail to the address of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) on January 13, 2022. A blank Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis by a Prisoner, its instructions and a file-stamped copy of the Complaint were included in the mailing to Plaintiff.
|
| Filing 1 PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT With Request of Injunction against All Defendants - filed by Roberta Malori. (Attachments: #1 Mailing Documentation)(eta) |
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.
