Schultz v. State of Hawaii

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

BRENDAN SCHULTZ, CIVIL NO. 21-00443 JAO-RT

Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION vs.

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, DOES 1 THROUGH 100,

Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION On November 8, 2021, Plaintiff Brendan Schultz (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend, denied leave to proceed IFP, and ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee by November 24, 2021. ECF No. 6. The Court cautioned that failure to do so would result in the automatic dismissal of this action. Id. To date, Plaintiff has not remitted the filing fee. Courts do not take failures to prosecute and failures to comply with Court orders lightly. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 41(b) authorizes the Court to sua sponte dismiss an action for failure “to prosecute or to comply with [the federal] rules or a court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005). Unless the Court in its order for dismissal

otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this rule operates as an adjudication upon the merits. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). To determine whether dismissal is appropriate, the Court must consider five

factors: “(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 defendants/ respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291

F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992)). Although the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is not exempt from complying with all applicable rules. See Local Rule 81.1(a)

(“Pro se litigants shall abide by all local, federal, and other applicable rules and/or statutes.”). In view of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order, the Court finds that the Pagtalunan factors support dismissal of this action. The public’s

interest in expeditious resolution of this litigation strongly favors dismissal, see Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (quoting Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation

always favors dismissal.” (quotations omitted)), as does the Court’s need to manage its docket. See id. (citing Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261). Moreover, there is no risk of prejudice to Defendant, as the Complaint was dismissed and Defendant was

not served. Finally, there are currently no less drastic alternatives available. This

case cannot proceed without the filing fee. The Court concedes that the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits weighs against dismissal. However, considering the totality of the circumstances and because all of the preceding factors favor dismissal, this factor is outweighed. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: — Honolulu, Hawai‘i, November 30, 2021.

~ Rs, ° KB dot Jill A. Otake Ro ait : '$ United States District Judge

Civil No. 21-00443 JAO-RT; Schulz v. State of Hawai ‘i, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION