Lagmay v. Nobriga, et al

Filing 27

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS re 26 - Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 4/6/2017. (emt, )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). Henry Lagmay served by first class mail at the address of record on April 6, 2017.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

HENRY LAGMAY, #AO191119,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SHELLY NOBRIGA, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________ )

CIV. NO. 16-00408 DKW/KJM
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS
Plaintiff’s April 5, 2017 “Objections” are construed as a motion for
reconsideration of the Court’s March 21, 2017 Order striking the proposed Second
Amended Complaint. See ECF No. 26; Local Rule LR60.1. Three grounds justify
reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of
new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
Hele Ku KB, LLC v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 873 F. Supp. 2d 1268, 1289
(D. Haw. 2012); Grandinetti v. Hyun, 2017 WL 239741, at *2 (D. Haw. Jan. 19,
2017).
Plaintiff claims “Bias-PreJudice-Preconception-Favoritism-Discrimination,”
and “Indifference.” Mot., ECF No. 26. He objects to the dismissal of Defendants
“who acquiesces in Illegal Behavior which could be regulated by contract,” and

alleges an implied conspiracy. Plaintiff cites Phillips v. Hust, 338 F. Supp.2d 1148
(D. Ore. 2004), a decision that was vacated by the Supreme Court, 555 U.S. 1150
(2009), and to two of his own cases that were dismissed for failure to state a claim
and later affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. See ECF No. 26, PageID #645-46 (citing
App. Nos.15-17068 and 16-1586).
Plaintiff cites no new law or evidence, nor details circumstances justifying
the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See White v. Sabatino,
424 F.Supp.2d 1271, 1274 (D. Haw. 2006). Plaintiff therefore fails to persuade the
Court to reconsider its decision to strike the Second Amended Complaint for
failure to comply with the Court’s explicit directions, and his Objections are
DENIED and OVERRULED.
Plaintiff is again reminded that it is his responsibility to ensure that
Defendants Kaipo Sarkissian and Levy Christensen are served within the time

///

///

///
2

allotted for service by FRCP 4(m), as calculated from the February 9, 2017 Service
Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 6, 2017 at Honolulu, Hawai’i.

/s/ Derrick K. Watson
Derrick K. Watson
United States District Judge

Henry Lagmay vs. Shelly Nobriga, et al.; Civil No. 16-00408 DKW-KJM;
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS
Lagmay v. Nobriga, 1:16-cv-00408; psa Recon 2017/Lagmay dkw (obj to dsm SAC).

3