Minutes | Filed: August 20, 2025
| Entered: August 20, 2025
Oliveira v. Hawaii Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (DLIR) et al
Civil Rights: Other | Hawaii
Link
EO: COURT DISMISSING ACTION
On May 12, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff Robert Joseph Oliveira, Jr.'s ("Plaintiff") Motion to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. ECF No. 13. On July 1, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff additional time to pay the filing fee in full and serve the Defendants by July 31, 2025. ECF No. 15. On July 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration ("Motion"). ECF No. 16. On August 1, 2025, the Court denied the Motion and ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee within fourteen (14) days of August 1, 2025. ECF No. 17. However, at this juncture, Plaintiff has failed to comply.
Plaintiff has the general duty to prosecute this case. Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). A federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962). In appropriate circumstances, the Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute even without notice or hearing. Id. at 633.
In determining whether Plaintiff's failure to prosecute warrants dismissal of the case, the Court must weigh the following 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 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions." Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). "The first two of these factors favor the imposition of sanctions in most cases, while the fourth factor cuts against a default or dismissal sanction. Thus, the key factors are prejudice and availability of lesser sanctions." Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990).
Here, the first and second factors favor dismissal. Plaintiff's repeated failure to pay the filing fee and comply with the Court's orders delays the resolution of this case and prevents adjudication on the merits. The Court first ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee on May 12, 2025, but Plaintiff did not comply. ECF No. 13. On July 1, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff an additional thirty (30) days to pay, yet Plaintiff again failed to do so. ECF No. 15. On August 1, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay within fourteen (14) days, but Plaintiff again failed to comply. ECF No. 17. The third factor also weighs in favor of dismissal because there is no risk of prejudice to the Defendant. Although the fourth factor weighs against dismissal, Plaintiff's failure to pay and commence litigation substantially outweighs that consideration. The fifth factor requires that the Court consider whether a less drastic alternative is available. Because Plaintiff has already been granted an extension to pay and has been cautioned of the consequences of his failure to prosecute, no sanction lesser than dismissal is feasible. The Court cannot indefinitely hold this case in abeyance awaiting payment of the filing fee. Accordingly, dismissal of this action is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The Court hereby ORDERS this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
(Judge SHANLYN A.S. PARK)(tl)
COURTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Non-Registered CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Pro Se (Non-Prisoner) Litigants that have consented to receive documents and Notices of Electronic Filings by email, have been served electronically at the e-mail address listed on the (NEF)