Buchanan v. Doris Duke Foundation - Shangri-La Museum of Islamic Art

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I

ROSE A. BUCHANAN, Case No. 24-cv-00383-DKW-WRP

Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT vs. TO PLAINTIFF’S AS- CONSTRUED NOTICE OF DORIS DUKE FOUNDATION – DISMISSAL1 SHANGRI-LA MUSEUM OF ISLAMIC ART, et al.,

Defendants.

On October 2, 2024, the Court issued an Order dismissing Plaintiff Rose Buchanan’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) based on her failure to assert sufficient facts to plausibly state a claim for relief. Dkt. No. 9. The Court gave Buchanan limited leave to amend, but cautioned her that failure to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) by October 25, 2024 would result in the dismissal of her action without prejudice or further notice. See id. at 4–5. In response, on October 8, 2024, instead of filing an SAC, Buchanan filed a request “to withdraw/dismiss [her] complaint, with prejudice, case no. 24-cv-00383-DKW- WRP due to lack of more required facts.” Dkt. No. 11 at 1.

1Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c), the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) provides that a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order by filing either:

(i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). If an opposing party has answered, moved for summary judgment, and/or refused to stipulate to dismissal, the action “may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order [and] on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Here, no Defendant has appeared, much less answered or filed a motion for summary judgment. As such, the Court construes Buchanan’s request as a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).2 This action is therefore DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE by operation of law.3 See Com. Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir.

1999) (“[I]t is beyond debate that a dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is required, the parties are left as though no action had been

2Because Buchanan is pro se, the Court construes her filings liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). 3Although a voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) is usually without prejudice, Buchanan specifically requested dismissal with prejudice. See Dkt. No. 11 at 1; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). brought, the defendant can’t complain, and the district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it.’’). The Clerk of Court is instructed to CLOSE this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 21, 2024 at Honolulu, Hawai‘1.

| eo ne Derrick K. Watson Ra Chief United States District Judge

Rose A. Buchanan vs. Doris Duke Foundation et al; Civil No. 24-00383 DK W- WRP; ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO PLAINTIFF’S AS-CONSTRUED NOTICE OF DISMISSAL

-3-