Thomas v. Waianae Coast Comprehensive et al

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE re 1 - Signed by SENIOR JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 11/26/2024. The claims in Plaintiffs' Complaint, which the Court previously dismissed without prejudice, are HEREBY DIS MISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk's Office to enter final judgment and close the case on December 11, 2024. (eta)COURT'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Miles Thomas has been served by First Class Mail to the address of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) on November 26, 2024.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF HAWAII
MILES THOMAS,

CIV. NO. 24-00347 LEK-KJM
Plaintiff,

vs.
WAIANAE COAST COMPREHENSIVE,
JUSTIN DIEGO, PATRICK MURRAY,
SHIRLEY TAMORIA,
Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE
On August 12, 2024, pro se Plaintiff Miles Thomas
(“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint for a Civil Case (“Complaint”)
and an Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs (“Application”). [Dkt. nos. 1, 3.] On
September 17, 2024, the Court issued an order dismissing
Plaintiffs’ Complaint with leave to amend, and reserving ruling
on the Application. [Dkt. no. 5.1] The deadline for Plaintiffs to
file an amended complaint was November 18, 2024. [Id. at 8.]
As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has neither
filed an amended complaint nor requested an extension of the
filing deadline. Because Plaintiff has not identified any
circumstance which constitutes good cause warranting an
extension of the November 18, 2024 deadline, this Court has the

1

The order is also available at 2024 WL 4225929.

discretion to dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. 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 P. 41(b)),2 superseded by statute on other grounds as
recognized in Russel v. United States, Case No.: 21cv1029-LLMDD, 2023 WL 2919319, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2023). After
weighing the five dismissal factors set forth in Dreith v. Nu
Image, Inc., 648 F.3d 779, 788 (9th Cir. 2011),3 this Court finds
that the public interest in the expeditious resolution of this
litigation and this Court’s interest in managing its docket
strongly outweigh the policy favoring disposition of Plaintiff’s
claims on the merits. Moreover, the defendants will not be

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.”
2

3

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 (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted).
2

prejudiced by the dismissal because Plaintiff did not serve the
Complaint, and there are no less drastic alternatives available
at this time.
The claims in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, which the Court
previously dismissed without prejudice, are HEREBY DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk’s Office to enter
final judgment and close the case on December 11, 2024.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, November 26, 2024

MILES THOMAS VS. WAIANAE COAST COMPREHENSIVE, ET AL; CV 24-00347
LEK-KJM; ORDER: DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE

3