Davies v. Department of Public Safety et al
| Tobius Davies |
| Department of Public Safety, Sanna Munoz and Dwayne Kojima |
| Litigation Coordinator, State of Hawaii |
| 1:2023cv00580 |
| December 8, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Hawaii |
| WES REBER PORTER |
| J MICHAEL SEABRIGHT |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1343 Violation of Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 24, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 CLERK'S JUDGMENT entered on 1/24/2024 in favor of the Defendants and against Plaintiff, pursuant to ECF 4, Entering Order. COURT'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Non-Registered CM/ECF Participants shall be served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the (NEF) on 1/24/2024. 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) (jni) |
| 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 December 12, 2023, the court mailed to Plaintiff an Order Denying Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by a Prisoner, ECF No. 2 [ECF No. 3]. In that Order, the court instructed Plaintiff to submit a complete in forma pauperis application on or before January 10, 2024. The court also warned Plaintiff that failing to follow this instruction would result in automatic dismissal of this action without prejudice. It appears that Plaintiff received the Order because it was not returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff, however, failed to submit a complete in forma pauperis application by the January 10, 2024 deadline. 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 Defendants. 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 Defendants and against Plaintiff, dismissing this action without prejudice; and (2) CLOSE the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. (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 3
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BY A PRISONER, ECF NO. 2 re #2 - Signed by JUDGE J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT on 12/11/2023.... Davies is therefore DIRECTED to submit a complete IFP Application that includes account statements for the entire six-month period immediately preceding the commencement of this action on November 27, 2023. If Davies was not incarcerated immediately before September 27, 2023, or if he did not have any account transactions between May 27, 2023, and September 27, 2023, he should make this clear in any IFP Application that he files. Failure to file a complete IFP Application on or before January 10, 2024, will result in automatic dismissal of this suit without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th Cir. 1995). The court will take no action on any future filings until Davies pays the filing fee or is granted IFP status.The Clerk is DIRECTED to send Davies an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis to facilitate his compliance with this Order.COURT'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Tobius Davies shall be served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the (NEF) on 12/12/2023. Additionally, a blank Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis has been included in the mailing to Plaintiff.(jni)
|
| Filing 2 APPLICATION to Proceed in Forma Pauperis by a Prisoner - by Plaintiff Tobius Davies. (Attachments: #1 Mailing Envelope)(jni) |
| Filing 1 Prisoner Civil Rights COMPLAINT against Department of Public Safety, Sanna Munoz, Dwayne Kojima - filed by Tobius Davies. (Attachments: #1 Mailing Envelope)(jni) |
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.
