Vigneron-Moulin v. Queen's Medical Center, The et al

Filing 13

ORDER GRANTING 11 PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS AND DECLINING TO ADOPT THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S 10 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS THIS ACTION. Signed by District JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on November 14, 2011. (bbb, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
FRANCOISE VIGNERON-MOULIN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
THE QUEEN’S MEDICAL CENTER,
)
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 11-00359 LEK-BMK

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND
DECLINING TO ADOPT THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS THIS ACTION
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff
Francoise Vigneron-Moulin’s (“Plaintiff”) “Ex-parte Motion to
Vacate Recommendation to Dismiss and Order”, filed on November 8,
2011.

The Court construes Plaintiff’s filing as her Objections

to the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendations to Dismiss
This Action (“F&R”), filed on October 25, 2011.

The Court finds

this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant
to Rule LR7.2(d) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United
States District Court for the District of Hawai`i (“Local
Rules”).
In her Objections, Plaintiff represents that she
resides outside of the United States1 and, for this reason, she
1

The Court notes that, although the Complaint states
Plaintiff is a citizen of Belgium and resides in Luxembourg, the
(continued...)

was not able to appear at the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference
before the magistrate judge on September 7, 2011, [Minutes, filed
9/7/11 (dkt. no. 7) (stating that the scheduling conference was
not held because Plaintiff did not appear or file a scheduling
conference statement),] nor was she able to file a statement
demonstrating good cause why sanctions, including dismissal of
the case, should not be imposed upon her [Order to Show Cause,
filed 9/12/11 (dkt. no. 8)].2

Plaintiff also contends that she

has made an effort to serve the defendants in this case.

Based

on Plaintiff’s representations, the Court cannot adopt the
magistrate judge’s F&R.
Plaintiff has been representing herself pro se in this
matter.

Although she states that she has recently retained

counsel, no licensed attorney has entered an appearance for
Plaintiff in this case.

Likewise, although Plaintiff has

provided a declaration by Lucy Kagan stating that she served the
defendants in this case with the Summons and Complaint, Plaintiff
has not yet filed any returns of service.

Although pro se

1

(...continued)
address that she provided in the Complaint is a Waianae address
“c/o Pierre Moulin”. She also provided a Hawai`i telephone
number. [Complaint at 1.] This is the same address that
Plaintiff provided in the instant Objections. [Objections at 1.]
2

The Court also notes that Plaintiff failed to appear at
the hearing on the Order to Show Cause. [Minutes, filed 10/19/11
(dkt. no. 9) (noting that the hearing was not held due to
Plaintiff’s failure to appear).]
2

litigants are held to less stringent standards than those of
their legal counterparts, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972) (per curiam); Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 757 (9th
Cir. 2003), a litigant’s pro se status cannot excuse her from
complying with the procedural or substantive rules of the court.
See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se
litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern
other litigants.” (citations omitted)).

Accordingly, Plaintiff

is put on notice that, if she fails to comply with the rules and
orders of the court, she may face sanctions, including dismissal
of her complaint or other appropriate sanctions.

See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 11; Local Rule LR11.1.
Specifically, the Court HEREBY ORDERS Plaintiff to: 1)
file a return of service by December 1, 2011 for each defendant
upon whom Plaintiff, or someone acting on her behalf, has
effected service; 2) file a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference
Statement by December 14, 2011; and 3) provide the Clerk’s Office
with her current mailing address, e-mail address, and telephone
number by December 1, 2011.

If there are any future changes to

Plaintiff’s contact information, Plaintiff must promptly notify
the Clerk’s Office of the changes.

The Court CAUTIONS Plaintiff

that, if she fails to comply with this Court’s order, she may
face sanctions, including the dismissal of this action.

3

CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Objections,
filed November 8, 2011, to the magistrate judge’s Findings and
Recommendations to Dismiss This Action, filed on October 25,
2011, are HEREBY GRANTED.

The Court declines to adopt the F&R

and DIRECTS the magistrate judge to reset the Rule 16 Scheduling
Conference.

The Court, however, CAUTIONS Plaintiff that, if she

fails to comply with the terms of this order, she may face
sanctions, including the dismissal of this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, November 14, 2011.

/S/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge

FRANCOISE VIGNERON-MOULIN V. THE QUEEN’S MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL;
CIVIL NO. 11-00359 LEK-BMK; ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS
AND DECLINING TO ADOPT THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS THIS ACTION

4