Flores v. Trump
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 02/17/2017. Plaintiff's Complaint, which this Court previously dismissed without prejudice, is HEREBY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. In light of the di smissal of the Complaint with prejudice,Plaintiff's Application, and all of the other motions that Plaintiff filed with the Complaint, are HEREBY DENIED AS MOOT.This Court DIRECTS the Clerk's Office to close the case on March 10, 2017, u nless Plaintiff files a motion for reconsideration of this Order by March 6, 2017. (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 served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
CIVIL 16-00652 LEK-RLP
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE
On December 9, 2016, pro se Plaintiff Xavier Flores
(“Plaintiff”) filed, inter alia, his Complaint and an Application
to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs
[Dkt. nos. 1, 7.]
On January 12, 2017, this
Court issued an order dismissing the Complaint, with leave to
amend (“1/12/17 Order”).
[Dkt. no. 8.]
This Court also reserved
ruling on the Application and all of Plaintiff’s other motions,
pending the filing of an amended complaint and this Court’s
screening of the amended complaint.
The 1/12/17 Order gave
Plaintiff until February 13, 2017 to file an amended complaint
that cured the defects identified in the 1/12/17 Order.
Order at 12-13.]
Because Plaintiff has neither filed an amended
complaint nor requested an extension of the February 13, 2017
deadline, this Court has the discretion to dismiss the Complaint
See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 988
(9th Cir. 1999) (holding that the plaintiff’s failure to comply
with a minute order setting forth the deadline to file the
amended complaint gave the district court the discretion to
dismiss the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)).1
the five dismissal factors set forth in Dreith v. Nu Image, Inc.,
648 F.3d 779, 788 (9th Cir. 2011),2 this Court finds that the
public interest in the expeditious resolution of this litigation
and this Court’s interest in managing the docket strongly
outweigh the policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits.
Moreover, the defendant will not be prejudiced by dismissal
because Plaintiff did not serve the Complaint, and there are no
less drastic alternatives available at this time.
Plaintiff’s Complaint, which this Court previously
dismissed without prejudice, is HEREBY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
In light of the dismissal of the Complaint with prejudice,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) states, in pertinent part: “If the
plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a
court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any
claim against it.”
The Ninth Circuit has
identified five factors that a district court must
consider before dismissing a case . . . : (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 other
party; (4) the public policy favoring the
disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the
availability of less drastic sanctions.
Dreith, 648 F.3d at 788 (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff’s Application, and all of the other motions that
Plaintiff filed with the Complaint, are HEREBY DENIED AS MOOT.
This Court DIRECTS the Clerk’s Office to close the case
on March 10, 2017, unless Plaintiff files a motion for
reconsideration of this Order by March 6, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, February 17, 2017.
/s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge
XAVIER FLORES VS. DONALD TRUMP; CIVIL 16-00652 LEK-RLP; ORDER
DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE
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.
Why Is My Information Online?