Young v. University of Hawaii et al

Filing 152

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE - Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 9/10/2020. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the August 11, 2020 Order, this case is DISMISSED, and this dismissal is now WITH PREJUDIC E. The Clerk is instructed to enter Final Judgment in favor of all defendants pursuant to the August 11, 2020 Order (Dkt. No. 133) and this Order, and then CLOSE this case. (emt, )COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - Stephen Robert Neale Young served by First Class Mail to the address of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) on September 10, 2020. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically to the email addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF).

Case 1:20-cv-00231-DKW-RT Document 152 Filed 09/10/20 Page 1 of 3

PageID #: 2942

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
STEPHEN ROBERT NEALE YOUNG,

Case No. 20-cv-00231-DKW-RT

Plaintiff,
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH
PREJUDICE

v.
UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I, et al.,
Defendants.

On August 11, 2020, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to
amend, observing that the Complaint, among other things, failed to comply with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). The fifty-one-page Complaint did not meet
Rule 8(a)’s standards principally because it contained no factual allegations
supporting many of the underlying claims and because it was impossible to
determine which of the eight defendants were the target of which of the twelve
claims. Dkt. No. 133 at 7-8, 10. Instead, the Complaint merely “reference[d]”
without further development a complaint in a different case filed by Plaintiff
Young. As a result, the Court provided Plaintiff until September 4, 2020 to file an
amended complaint that corrected the deficiencies identified by the Court.1

1

Rule 8(a) was not the Complaint’s only problem. See Dkt. No. 133 at 9-10 (describing the
Complaint’s violations of Rule 9(b)).

Case 1:20-cv-00231-DKW-RT Document 152 Filed 09/10/20 Page 2 of 3

PageID #: 2943

Plaintiff, however, did not file an amended complaint by September 4, 2020,
nor has one been filed as of the date of this Order. Instead, on September 8, 2020,
Plaintiff filed a “Declaration.” Dkt. No. 150. Plaintiff's Declaration states that he
“cannot” file an amended complaint in compliance with Rule 8(a) and “any
amount of time” to do so would be insufficient. Id. at ¶¶ 17, 26-28.
In light of Plaintiff’s pleadings deficiencies and Declaration, this case must
be dismissed. As the Court cautioned in its August 11, 2020 Order, “failure to file
an amended complaint by September 4, 2020 may result in the dismissal of this
case.” Dkt. No. 133 at 17. Here, not only has Plaintiff failed to file an amended
complaint by September 4, 2020, but he has stated that he never intends to file an
amended complaint in this action.2 As such, the only complaint in this case has
been dismissed, there is no operative complaint with which to proceed, and there is
no desire on Plaintiff’s part to produce one.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the August 11, 2020 Order, this case
is DISMISSED, and this dismissal is now WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is

2

Although it is not perfectly clear, it appears that Plaintiff believes he “cannot” file an amended
complaint because he is “unable to write a complaint which does not reference anything within
or outside of it….” Dkt. No. 150 at ¶ 26. Precisely why he is not able to do so, particularly
with the guidance provided by the Court, is not obvious. Moreover, the purported restriction
Plaintiff cites was not part of the August 11, 2020 Order. See Dkt. No. 133 at 8 (explaining that
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do “not allow reference to another complaint without
making any factual allegations in the operative complaint” and that the purpose of Rule 8(a) is to
provide a “short and plain statement of the claim in the operative complaint….”) (emphasis in
original, quotation omitted).
2

Case 1:20-cv-00231-DKW-RT Document 152 Filed 09/10/20 Page 3 of 3

PageID #: 2944

instructed to enter Final Judgment in favor of all defendants pursuant to the
August 11, 2020 Order (Dkt. No. 133) and this Order, and then CLOSE this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 10, 2020 at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.

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

Stephen Robert Neale Young v. University of Hawaii, et al; Civil No. 20-00231
DKW-RT; ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE

3