Baker v. State of Hawai'i et al.

Filing 96

ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 02/11/2014. (eps)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
FREDERICK H.K. BAKER, JR. and )
HAUNANI Y. BAKER,
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
vs.
)
)
STATE OF HAWAI`I; STATE OF
)
HAWAI`I BY ITS’ DEPARTMENT OF )
HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS; NEIL
)
ABERCROMBIE; HUGH E. GORDON; )
)
SCOTT D. PARKER; ROBERT
)
KORBEL DAVIS, JR; JOHN DOES
)
1-100; and JANE DOES 1-100,
)
)
Defendants.
_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 13-00159 LEK-KSC

ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
On June 12, 2013, pro se Plaintiffs Frederick H.K.
Baker, Jr. and Haunani Y. Baker (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)
filed their First Amended Civil Rights Complaint with Jury Demand
(“First Amended Complaint”).

[Dkt. no. 21.]

The First Amended

Complaint named the following defendants: the State of Hawai`i,
the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, and Neil Abercrombie
(collectively, “the State Defendants”); Hugh E. Gordon
(“Defendant Gordon”); Scott D. Parker (“Defendant Parker”); and
Robert Korbel Davis, Jr. (“Defendant Davis”).
On October 7, 2013, this Court issued an order that,
inter alia, granted the State Defendants’ motion to dismiss and
granted Defendant Davis’s motion to dismiss (“the 10/7/13
Order”).

[Dkt. no. 66.]

The 10/7/13 Order dismissed Plaintiffs’

claims against the State Defendants and Plaintiffs’ claims
against Defendant Davis with prejudice.

[10/7/13 Order at 21.]

The 10/7/13 Order also noted that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(m),1 Plaintiffs had until October 10, 2013 to serve the First
Amended Complaint on Defendants Gordon and Parker.

This Court

stated that, if Plaintiffs were unable to effect service by
October 10, 2013, Plaintiffs had to file a motion for an
extension of time to complete service.

Pursuant to Rule 4(m),

Plaintiffs would have to show good cause for their failure to
complete service by October 10, 2013.

This Court ordered

Plaintiffs to file the motion for extension of time by
October 17, 2013, and this Court cautioned Plaintiffs that, if
they failed to file the motion by October 17, 2013, this Court
would dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Gordon and
Parker without prejudice.

[Id. at 20-21.]

On October 25, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the 10/7/13 Order, and this Court issued an
order denying the motion for reconsideration on December 13, 2013

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) states, in pertinent part:
If a defendant is not served within 120 days after
the complaint is filed, the court--on motion or on
its own after notice to the plaintiff--must
dismiss the action without prejudice against that
defendant or order that service be made within a
specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good
cause for the failure, the court must extend the
time for service for an appropriate period.
2

(“12/13/13 Order”).

[Dkt. nos. 71, 83.]

The 12/13/13 Order gave

Plaintiffs until December 20, 2013 to serve Defendants Gordon and
Parker with the First Amended Complaint.
On December 9, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their Motion
Requesting Leave of Court to Substitute Doe Defendants 1-3 with
Defendant Kip Akana, Defendant Paul Ah Yat, and Defendant Robin
Nagamine (“Motion to Substitute”).

[Dkt. no. 81.]

Plaintiffs,

however, subsequently withdrew the Motion to Substitute.

[Dkt.

nos. 85, 86.]
On December 26, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal from the 12/13/13 Order.

[Dkt. no. 88.]

On January 13,

2014, the Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiffs’ appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.

[Dkt. no. 92.]

On January 15, 2014, this Court

issued an entering order stating that this Court was inclined to
dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Gordon and Parker
unless Plaintiffs showed good cause why this Court should not do
so (“1/15/14 EO”).

[Dkt. no. 93.]

This Court cautioned

Plaintiffs that, if they failed to file a memorandum responding
to the 1/15/14 EO by January 29, 2014, this Court would dismiss
all of Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Gordon and Parker
and would close the case.
Plaintiffs neither filed proof of service on Defendants
Gordon and Parker nor filed a response to the 1/15/14 EO.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and the terms of the 1/15/14 EO,

3

this Court HEREBY DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant
Gordon and Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Parker WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for failure to serve.
There being no remaining claims in this action, this
Court DIRECTS the Clerk’s Office to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, February 11, 2014.

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

FREDERICK H.K. BAKER, JR., ET AL. VS. STATE OF HAWAI`I, ET AL;
CIVIL 13-00159 LEK-KSC; ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

4