Opunui v. Derr
| Patrick Opunui, Jr. |
| Estella Derr |
| 1:2022cv00131 |
| March 28, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Hawaii |
| WES REBER PORTER |
| DERRICK K WATSON |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 9, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 CLERK'S JUDGMENT entered on 5/9/2022 pursuant to ECF No. 4 Entering Order. (eta) |
| 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 March 29, 2022, the Court mailed to Petitioner a Habeas Deficiency Order [ECF No. 2]. The Court instructed Petitioner to pay the filing fee or to submit a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by a Prisoner on or before April 25, 2022. The Court also warned Petitioner that failing to follow this instruction would result in automatic dismissal of this action without prejudice. It appears that Petitioner received the Order because it was not returned to the Court as not deliverable. Petitioner, however, failed to pay the filing fee or submit a complete in forma pauperis 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, allowing this action to sit idle would prejudice Respondent. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 99192 (9th Cir. 1999) ("Plaintiffs' paltry excuse for his default on the judge's order indicates that there was sufficient prejudice to Defendants from the delay that this factor also strongly favors dismissal."). 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.The Clerk is DIRECTED to: (1) ENTER JUDGMENT in favor of the Respondent and against Petitioner, dismissing this action without prejudice, but without leave to amend; and (2) 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) |
| COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - a copy of 4 Entering Order and #5 Clerk's Judgment have been served by First Class Mail to Patrick Opunui, Jr. at the address of record on May 9, 2022. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (eta) |
| Filing 3 Motion in Support of #1 Petitioner's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus - filed by Patrick Opunui, Jr. (Attachments: #1 Mailing Documentation)(eta) |
Filing 2
HABEAS DEFICIENCY ORDER - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT on 3/28/2022. (eta)
|
| Filing 1 PETITION Under 28 U.S.C. 2241 for a for Writ of Habeas Corpus - filed by Patrick Opunui, Jr. (Attachments: #1 Response to Inmate Request for Home Confinement (CARES Act), #2 Mailing Documentation)(eta) |
| COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - a copy of #2 HABEAS DEFICIENCY ORDER shall be been served by First Class Mail to Patrick Opunui, Jr. at the address of record on March 29, 2022. An Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by a Prisoner, its instructions and a file-stamped copy of the habeas petition shall be included in the mailing to Petitioner. (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
| Search for this case: Opunui v. Derr | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Patrick Opunui, Jr. | |
| 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: Estella Derr | |
| 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.
