Pierce v. Gavigan et al
| Samuel Pierce |
| Marie Gavigan, Gary Yamashiroya, David Matsumiya and John Does 1-10 |
| 1:2022cv00083 |
| March 4, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Hawaii |
| KENNETH J MANSFIELD |
| J MICHAEL SEABRIGHT |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 20, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 20 USCA ORDER as to #10 Appeal Remark: USCA Case Number: 22-70042 - Petition For a Writ of Mandamus, filed by Samuel Pierce A review of the district court's docket indicates that the district court dismissed the action and entered judgment on March 30, 2022. Accordingly, the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied as moot. No further filings will be entertained in this closed case. DENIED. (jo) |
| Filing 19 EO: Plaintiff's "Motion to Transfer Filing Fee to District of Maine," ECF No. #18 , is DENIED. See, e.g., In re Szillery, 2019 WL 6999108, at *2 (D. Me. Dec. 20, 2019) ("The Court is aware of no provision of law that would permit it to transfer a filing fee from one case to another."). (CHIEF JUDGE J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT)(rlfh)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 18 MOTION to Transfer Filing Fee to District of Maine, Case #22-cv-86 - by Plaintiff Samuel Pierce (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A) (jo) |
| Filing 17 CLERK'S JUDGMENT entered 3/30/2022 pursuant to ECF No. 16 Entering Order (jo)COURTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - 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 Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). |
| Filing 16 EO: On March 24, 2022, the court requested clarification from Plaintiff by March 28, 2022 as to his intentions regarding his "Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Due to Expected Surrender of Hawaii and Closure of Court," ECF No. #14 . See ECF No. [15.] As of March 29, 2022, the Clerk of Court has not received a response from Plaintiff as requested by the court. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action. (CHIEF JUDGE J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT)(rlfh)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 15 EO: On March 23, 2022, Plaintiff sent a "Notice of Voluntary Dismissal due to Expected Surrender of Hawaii and Closure of Court" ("Notice") to the Clerk's Office. ECF No. #14 . The court is inclined to construe the Notice as a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), and thus direct the Clerk of Court to terminate the action.Before doing so, however, the court requests clarification from the Plaintiff as to his intentions regarding this case because Plaintiff's transmittal email asked the "Clerks Offices" to "Please ignore the attached or do whatever but you're done." ECF No. 14-1. It is thus unclear whether Plaintiff intended the Clerk to actually file the Notice and thus effectuate closure of the action. By March 28, 2022, Plaintiff is requested to notify the Clerk whether he intended to file the Notice and thus voluntarily dismiss the action. He may do so by email with a simple statement of his intention. If Plaintiff does not respond by March 28, 2022, the court will proceed to direct the Clerk to close the action. (CHIEF JUDGE J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT)(rlfh)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) Modified on 3/24/2022 (rlfh). |
| Filing 14 NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL DUE TO EXPECTED SURRENDER OF HAWAII AND CLOSURE OF COURT - filed by Samuel Pierce Note: This filing was submitted without an attachment as Exhibit A (Attachments: #1 Transmittal email) (jo) |
| Filing 13 EO: On March 20, 2022, Plaintiff sent an email to a court email address that is set aside for certain court filings and case-related communications. See ECF No. 12 . That email, which includes profane language, has no apparent case-related purpose. Id. at PageID # 45. Plaintiff sent a similar series of emails on March 10, 2022. See ECF No. 11 at PageID # 39-42. It is unclear whether Plaintiff intends for his emails to be filed on the docket of this case, but Plaintiff is notified that his ex parte communications with the court will be entered on the docket. See Local Rule 81.1(f). Plaintiff is ordered to STOP sending communications to the court that have no relation to a pending case or that contain profane language. (CHIEF JUDGE J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT)(rlfh)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 10 Appeal Remark: USCA Case Number: 22-70042 - Petition For a Writ of Mandamus; Re: Waiver of Locale Rule 83.1(c)(2)(B)(vi) - filed by Samuel Pierce A petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition has been received in the Clerk's Office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Pursuant to FRAP Rule 21(b), no answer to a petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition may be filed unless ordered by the Court. If such an order is issued, the answer shall be filed by the respondents within the time fixed by the Court. (Attachments: #1 Petition For a Writ of Mandamus) (jo) |
| Filing 9 EO: Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Waive Local Rule 83.1(c)(2)(B)(vi). ECF No. #8 . Rule 83.1(c)(2)(B)(vi) concerns a requirement, if a party is represented by pro hac vice counsel, for the "designation of a current member in good standing of the bar of this court" including a "commitment to at all times meaningfully participate" in the case. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, so the rule is inapplicable and the Motion is moot. And to the extent Plaintiff is seeking, prematurely, to waive the rule if pro hac vice counsel later makes an appearance, the Motion is DENIED. (CHIEF JUDGE J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT)(rlfh)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) |
| COURT'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - copies of ECF Nos. #2 , #4 , #5 , #6 , #7 were served upon Samuel Pierce to the email address of record on March 4, 2022. (jo) |
| Filing 8 Declaration ISO MOTION to Waive Locale Rule 83.1(c)(2)(B)(vi) - by Plaintiff Samuel Pierce (jo) |
| Filing 7 CIVIL Waiver of Service Packet ~ Notice to Parties Regarding Service Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Attachments: #1 AO 398 Notice of Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of Summons, #2 AO 399 Waiver of Service of Summons) (jo) |
| Filing 6 Summons Issued as to David Matsumiya (jo) |
| Filing 5 Summons Issued as to Gary Yamashiroya (jo) |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Marie Gavigan (jo) |
Filing 3
Order Setting Telephonic Rule 16 Scheduling Conference for 09:30 AM on 5/2/2022 before MAGISTRATE JUDGE KENNETH J. MANSFIELD - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT on 3/4/2022. (Attachments: #1 Memo From The Clerk Re: Corporate Disclosures) ATTACH THE ORDER SETTING RULE 16 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE TO THE INITIATING DOCUMENT (COMPLAINT/NOTICE OF REMOVAL). THE ORDER AND MEMO RE: CORPORATE DISCLOSURES MUST BE SERVED WITH THE DOCUMENT.(jo)COURT'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - 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 Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF).
|
| Filing 2 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants - filed by Samuel Pierce Originally filed in CV 21-00351 JMS-KJM; see ECF #1 . (jo) |
|
Filing 1
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL, ECF NO. 72, AND DIRECTING CLERK TO TRANSFER COMPLAINT TO NEW CIVIL ACTION - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT on 3/4/2022. Originally entered in CV 21-00351 JMS-KJM and filed herein to provide context for this new action. (jo)COURT'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - 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 Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF).
|
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.
