Hoapili v. Enoki et al

Filing 21

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Reopen The Case And Denying As Moot Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis. "This court recognizes that Hoapili is not a lawyer and may be at a loss as to how to proceed. However, her Motion To Reopen The Case does not address the underlying failure to state a claim that this court noted in previous orders. There is presently no undismissed complaint before this court, and Hoapili is not proposing to provide a belated amended ple ading that cures the problems identified in previous orders. With no basis on which to grant relief under Rule 60 and without any other provision that appears to apply here, this court denies the Motion To Reopen The Case. This denial renders the IFP Application moot." Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 12/14/17. (cib, )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
DIANNE K. HOAPILI aka
KUULEIMOMI `O PA `AHAO,,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ELLIOT R. ENOKI, UNITED
)
STATES ATTORNEY, DISTRICT OF )
HAWAI`I, ACTING UNITED STATES )
ATTORNEY, et al.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)

CIV. NO. 17-00384 SOM-KJM
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO REOPEN THE CASE AND
DENYING AS MOOT APPLICATION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO REOPEN THE CASE AND DENYING
AS MOOT APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Plaintiff Dianne K. Hoapili has filed a Motion To
Reopen The Case, accompanied by a new Application To Proceed In
Forma Pauperis.

The court denies the Motion To Reopen the Case

as not supported by the record and denies the IFP Application as
moot.
This court dismissed the original Complaint in this
case on August 14, 2017, giving Hoapili leave to file an amended
complaint, which she did.

The Amended Complaint was dismissed by

this court on September 12, 2017, with leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint.

The Second Amended Complaint was filed on

September 29, 2017, but this court dismissed that pleading on
October 4, 2017, with leave to file a Third Amended Complaint.
Then, on October 18, 2017, Hoapili filed a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal.

Now, two months later, she would like to reopen her

case.

Given the expiration of the time in which to seek relief

under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court
construes the Motion To Reopen The Case as a motion brought under
Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
This court recognizes that Hoapili is not a lawyer and
may be at a loss as to how to proceed.

However, her Motion To

Reopen The Case does not address the underlying failure to state
a claim that this court noted in previous orders.

There is

presently no undismissed complaint before this court, and Hoapili
is not proposing to provide a belated amended pleading that cures
the problems identified in previous orders.

With no basis on

which to grant relief under Rule 60 and without any other
provision that appears to apply here, this court denies the
Motion To Reopen The Case.

This denial renders the IFP

Application moot.
APPROVED AND SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, December 14, 2017.

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
Chief United States District Judge

Hoapili v. Enoki, CIV. NO. 17-00384 SOM-KJM
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REOPEN THE CASE AND DENYING
AS MOOT APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
2