Sebrina Worthington v. Raising Canes Panda Restaurant

• Court: District Court, D. Hawaii
• Decided: May 27, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00472
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

SEBRINA WORTHINGTON, ) Civil No. 25-00472 DKW-KJM ) Plaintiff, ) FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS vs. ) PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR ) FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND RAISING CANES PANDA ) COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER RESTAURANT, ) ) Defendant. ) _______________________________ )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER

On November 5, 2025, Plaintiff Sebrina Worthington (“Plaintiff”) filed an unsigned Complaint for a Civil Case (“Complaint”) against Defendant Raising Canes Panda Restaurant (“Defendant”). ECF No. 1. The court instructed Plaintiff to return a signed copy to the Clerk’s Office as soon as possible. See Advisory Entry issued on November 5, 2025. That same day, the court also issued a Deficiency Order because Plaintiff did not submit a filing fee or application to proceed in forma pauperis with the Complaint. ECF No. 2. The Deficiency Order advised Plaintiff that she “must either pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 and the administrative fee of $55.00, or submit a fully-completed in forma pauperis application” within 28 days of the filing of the Deficiency Order. Id. at 1. The Deficiency Order also warned Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to do so will result in AUTOMATIC DISMISSAL, of this

action for failure to prosecute or otherwise follow a court order.” Id. at 1–2 (citations omitted). On April 13, 2026, Plaintiff submitted a signed copy of the Complaint. ECF

No. 8. Plaintiff, however, has not paid the filing fee or submitted a fully- completed in forma pauperis application. A district court may dismiss on its own motion an action for failure to comply with court rules or orders or to prosecute the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005). In determining whether dismissal is appropriate, district courts 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 the opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Arutyunyan, 93 F.4th 1136, 1146

(9th Cir. 2024) (citation omitted). The Court finds that the factors support dismissal of this action. The public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of cases strongly favors dismissal, as

does the Court’s need to manage its docket. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). This action has been pending for over six months. Allowing this action to sit idle would prejudice Defendant because Plaintiff has

offered no explanation for the delay and “[u]nnecessary delay inherently increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale.” Id. at 643 (citation omitted); see also Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 991–92

(9th Cir. 1999). In addition, there are no less drastic alternatives available. The court has already warned Plaintiff that the action would be dismissed if she did not comply with the court’s instructions, i.e., pay the filing fee or submit an application to

proceed in forma pauperis. This Court is recommending dismissal without prejudice, a less drastic sanction than a dismissal with prejudice. This factor therefore counsels in favor of dismissal. See In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA)

Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1237 (9th Cir. 2006) (recognizing that warnings can satisfy the “availability of less drastic sanctions” factor). Finally, the Court recognizes that public policy favors the disposition of cases on their merits, and this factor thus weighs against dismissal. Pagtalunan,

291 F.3d at 643. This Court finds, however, that because four of the factors weigh in favor of dismissal, this final factor is outweighed. Accordingly, dismissal is appropriate. Based on the foregoing, the Court FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that the district court DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to prosecute and comply with a court order. IT IS SO FOUND AND RECOMMENDED. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, May 27, 2026.

eine dof Kenneth J. Mansfield D> a oo United States Magistrate Judge aT aie >

Worthington v. Raising Canes Panda Restaurant, Civil No. 25-00472 DK W-KJM, Findings and Recommendation to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Failure to Prosecute and Comply With a Court Order