UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF HAWAII

ROBERT W. JOHNSON, CIV. NO. 24-00416 LEK-KJM

Plaintiff,

vs.

BL WATERTOWN LLC.,

Defendant.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE On September 23, 2024, pro se Plaintiff Robert W. Johnson (“Johnson”) filed a Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (“Complaint”) and an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“Application”). [Dkt. nos. 1,1 2.] On November 4, 2024, this Court issued an order dismissing Johnson’s Complaint without prejudice and reserving ruling on the Application (“11/4 Order”). [Dkt. no. 4.2] The deadline for Johnson to file his amended complaint was January 3, 2025. [Id. at 13.] As of the date of this Order, Johnson has neither filed an amended complaint nor requested an extension of the

1 The Complaint includes the name, contact information, and signature of Willie Johnson, Esq. See Complaint at § VI.B. However, there is no attorney named Willie Johnson authorized to practice in this district. Johnson is therefore assumed to be representing himself pro se.

2 The 11/4 Order is also available at

. filing deadline. This Court also notes that, on December 13, 2024, Johnson filed a notice of appeal from the 11/4 Order. [Dkt. no. 7.] This indicates that Johnson has chosen to appeal the 11/4 Order instead of filing an amended complaint, as permitted in the 11/4 Order. Under the circumstances of this

case, this Court finds that there is no good cause warranting an extension of the January 3, 2025 deadline. This Court therefore has the discretion to dismiss the case. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 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 P. 41(b)),3 superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Russel v. United States, Case No.: 21cv1029-LL-MDD,

, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2023). After weighing the five dismissal factors set forth in Dreith v. Nu Image, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2011),4 this Court finds that the

3 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.”

4 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 (. . . continued) 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 Johnson’s claims on the merits. Moreover, the defendant will not be prejudiced by the dismissal because Johnson did not serve the Complaint, and there are no less drastic alternatives available at this time. Johnson’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and the Application is DENIED AS MOOT. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk’s Office to enter final judgment and close the case on January 22, 2025. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, January 6, 2025. eT SY Or @ =, ry /s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi Leslie E. Kobayashi 4 Senior U.S. District Judge Qr Cannes

ROBERT W. JOHNSON VS. BL WATERTOWN LLC; CV 24-00416 LEK-KJM; ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE

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,

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).