Anger v. County of Hawaii

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF HAWAII
JORDAN JAMES ANGER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COUNTY OF HAWAII, BY AND THROUGH
ITS CORPORATION COUNCIL (RENEE
SCHOEN);
Defendant.
CIV. NO. 26-00004 LEK-WRP
ORDER: DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL
RIGHTS WITH PREJUDICE; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION
TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS
AS MOOT; AND DIRECTING THE CLERK’S OFFICE TO CLOSE THE CASE
On January 5, 2026, pro se Plaintiff Jordan James
Anger (“Anger”) 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,
2.] On February 17, 2026, this Court issued an order dismissing
the Complaint without prejudice and reserving ruling on the
Application (“2/17 Order”). [Dkt. no. 6. 1 ] The 2/17 Order stated
that, if Plaintiff chose to file an amended complaint, the
deadline to do so was April 17, 2026. See id. at 18.
As of the date of this Order, Anger has neither filed
an amended complaint nor requested an extension of the filing
1 The 2/17 Order is also available at 2026 WL 445807.
Case 1:26-cv-00004-LEK-WRP Document 7 Filed 04/20/26 Page 1 of 3
PageID.<pageID>

2
deadline. Because Anger has not identified any circumstance
which constitutes good cause warranting an extension of the
April 17, 2026 deadline, this Court has the discretion to
dismiss the Complaint with prejudice and close the case. See
Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 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 P. 41(b)), 2 superseded by statute on other grounds
as recognized in Russel v. United States, Case No.: 21cv1029-LL-
MDD, 2023 WL 2919319, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2023). After
weighing the five dismissal factors set forth in Dreith v. Nu
Image, Inc., 648 F.3d 779, 788 (9th Cir. 2011), 3 this Court finds
that the public interest in the expeditious resolution of this
2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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.”
3 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
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, 648 F.3d at 788 (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted).
Case 1:26-cv-00004-LEK-WRP Document 7 Filed 04/20/26 Page 2 of 3
PageID.<pageID>

3
litigation and this Court’s interest in managing the docket
strongly outweigh the policy favoring the disposition of Anger’s
claims on the merits. Moreover, Defendant County of Hawai`i will
not be prejudiced by the closure of the case because Anger did
not serve the Complaint, and there are no less drastic
alternatives available at this time.
The claims in Anger’s Complaint, which this Court
previously dismissed without prejudice, are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. In light of the dismissal with prejudice, Anger’s
Application is DENIED AS MOOT.
This Court DIRECTS the Clerk’s Office to enter final
judgment and close the case on May 5, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, April 20, 2026.
JORDAN JAMES ANGER VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF HAWAII; CV 26-00004
LEK-WRP; ORDER: 	DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION
OF CIVIL RIGHTS WITH PREJUDICE; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION
TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS AS
MOOT; AND DIRECTING THE CLERK’S OFFICE TO CLOSE THE CASE
Case 1:26-cv-00004-LEK-WRP Document 7 Filed 04/20/26 Page 3 of 3
PageID.<pageID>