Lucena- House of Yanos v. Rosen et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 11/2/2016. -- Because Plaintiff has not filed a notice of a change of address in accordance with Local Rule 83.1(h), paid the proper filing fee, filed a Notice of Withdrawal of the civil action, or filed an IFP application, the Court DISMISSES the civil action, Civil No. 16-00528 DKW-KJM (formerly Misc. No. 16-00263 DKW-KJM). (ecs, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticip ants 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 HAWAI`I

LUCENA – HOUSE OF YANOS,

CIV. NO. 16-00528 DKW-KJM

Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

vs.
DAVID B. ROSEN, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

On September 22, 2016, Plaintiff Lucena - House of Yanos, proceeding pro
se, filed a new action entitled “Notice of Distress” as a miscellaneous case (Misc.
No. 16-00263 DKW-KJM) and paid the $46 filing fee. On September 26, 2016,
the Court converted the miscellaneous case to a civil case, and issued a Deficiency
Order. Dkt. No. 3. That same day, the Court mailed the Deficiency Order and an
application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) to Plaintiff at the address she
provided on the Notice of Distress. On October 3, 2016, the mailing sent to
Plaintiff on September 26, 2016 was returned to the Court marked “Return to
Sender,” with the postal notation “Forward Time Exp.” Dkt. No. 4. On October 6,

2016, the Deficiency Order was served by First Class mail to the forwarding
address provided (P.O. Box 6066, Kahului, HI 96733-6066) and was not returned
to the Court as undeliverable thereafter.
The Deficiency Order granted Plaintiff leave to take one of the following
actions by October 21, 2016: (a) pay the full filing fee; (b) file a Notice of
Withdrawal of this action and obtain reimbursement of the $46 from the Clerk’s
Office; or (c) submit a completed and executed IFP application. The Deficiency
Order cautioned Plaintiff that failure to take one of these actions by October 21,
2016 would result in the automatic dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute or
otherwise follow a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Olivares v. Marshall, 59
F.3d 109, 112 (9th Cir. 1995) (stating that the district court has authority to dismiss
the complaint for failure to pay partial filing fee); In re Perroton, 958 F.2d 889,
890 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal of appeal of pro se litigant for failure to
pay required filing fees).
Because Plaintiff has not filed a notice of a change of address in accordance
with Local Rule 83.1(h), paid the proper filing fee, filed a Notice of Withdrawal of

2

the civil action, or filed an IFP application, the Court DISMISSES the civil action,
Civil No. 16-00528 DKW-KJM (formerly Misc. No. 16-00263 DKW-KJM).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 2, 2016 at Honolulu, Hawaii.

Lucena – House of Yanos v. Rosen et al., CV 16-00528 DKW-KJM; ORDER
DISMISSING CASE
3