Brisken v. Public Safety, Department of et al

Filing 5

DISMISSAL ORDER. Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 2/28/2017. --This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to pay the civil filing fee or respond to a court order. The Clerk isDIRECTED to enter judg ment and terminate this case. (ecs, )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

JOHN NIGEL BRISKEN,
#A0219610,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DEP’T OF PUBLIC SAFETY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIV. NO. 17-00029 DKW/KJM
DISMISSAL ORDER

DISMISSAL ORDER
Plaintiff John Nigel Brisken, who is incarcerated at the Saguaro Correctional
Center (“SCC”), located in Eloy, Arizona, filed this action on January 23, 2017,
without submitting the filing fee or an in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application. See
Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that SCC prison personnel violated his
constitutional rights by denying him adequate medical care and subjecting him to
other deficient conditions of confinement. Plaintiff names the Hawaii Department
of Public Safety (“DPS”), the Corrections Corporation of America (“CCA”), DPS
Health Care Administrator Wesley Mun, and SCC Assistant Warden Griego as
Defendants in the Complaint’s caption. He identifies several other SCC medical

and prison staff within the Complaint as personally involved in his claims.1 This
action is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the civil filing
fee or obey a court order.
I. BACKGROUND
On January 23, 2016, the Court issued a Deficiency Order directing Plaintiff
to submit the civil filing fee or an IFP application within twenty-eight days, on or
before February 20, 2017. Order, ECF No. 3. Plaintiff was warned that failure to
respond to the Deficiency Order would result in dismissal of this action. Plaintiff
has neither filed an IFP application nor submitted the civil filing fee.
While awaiting Plaintiff’s response to the Deficiency Order, the Court
discovered that Plaintiff has a pending suit in the District of Arizona alleging
nearly identical claims against some of the same defendants as in the present
action.2 See Brisken v. Griego, Civ. No. 16-02434-PHX-JJT (D. Ariz. filed June
20, 2016). The only discernible difference between these two actions is Plaintiff’s

1

Plaintiff generally identifies SCC “doctors, nurses, and staff” as denying him medical
care, and specifically names SCC staff Dr. Beard, Officer Peel, Nurse Batterman, Lt. Burns, Dr.
Beals, Nurse Patty Sells, and SCC Wardens Taylor, Griego, and Bradley. He also names
Contract Monitor Beckler and Case Manager Scott Jinbo, although it is unclear where they
reside.
2

The court may “take notice of proceedings in other courts, within and without the federal
judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” United States ex
rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992).
2

addition of Defendants DPS and Wesley Mun to this suit, presumably to assert
venue in the District of Hawaii.
II. DISCUSSION
All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court
of the United States must pay a filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may
proceed without prepayment of the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to
proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d
1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007). Further, prisoners granted leave to proceed IFP are
obligated to pay the entire fee in “increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. Samuels,
136 S. Ct. 627, 629 (2016); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir.
2015), regardless of the outcome of their suit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2);
Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002).
“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in
exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including dismissal of an
action. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.1986);
Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 988 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding plaintiff’s

3

failure to comply with minute order to file amended complaint gave district court
discretion to dismiss case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)).3
The Court considers five factors 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 v. Nu Image, Inc., 648 F.3d 779, 788 (9th Cir. 2011); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,
963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, Plaintiff’s failure to timely pay the
civil filing fee or seek IFP status, the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of
this litigation, and the Court’s interest in managing its docket weigh strongly in
favor of dismissing this action.
Moreover, because Plaintiff is already pursuing relief on these same claims
in the District of Arizona in Civ. No. 16-02434, and he can add Defendants
Department of Public Safety and Wesley Mun to that suit, the public policy
favoring disposition of cases on their merits is satisfied. Adding DPS and Mun to
Civ. No. 16-02434 will also protect Plaintiff from paying two civil filing fees to
litigate these claims. It is further clear that venue for Plaintiff’s claims lies in the
District of Arizona, where Plaintiff is incarcerated, the challenged events took
3

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.”
4

place, and the individuals directly responsible for Plaintiff’s claims reside.4
Dismissing the action now prevents the inevitable dismissal for lack of proper
venue. There is no prejudice to DPS and Mun in dismissing this action as they
have not been served (and can be served in Civ. No. 16-02434). In light of these
circumstances, dismissal without prejudice is the least drastic alternative and best
option for Plaintiff.
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s
failure to pay the civil filing fee or respond to a court order. The Clerk is
DIRECTED to enter judgment and terminate this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 28, 2017 at Honolulu, Hawai’i.

John Nigel Brisken v. Dep’t of Public Safety, et al.;
Civil No. 17-00029 DKW-KJM; DISMISSAL ORDER
Brisken v. Dep’t of Public Safety, et al., 1:17-cv-00029-DKW-KJM; Dismissal Order; Defc’y & Dsml Ords 2017

4

Jurisdiction for civil rights actions is generally proper in the district in which: (1) any
defendant resides, if all of the defendants reside in the same state; (2) a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is
the subject of the action is situated; or (3) any defendant may be found, if there is no district in
which the action may otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
5