Nemani v. City & County of Honolulu, Honolulu Police Department et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
ANNAPURNA NEMANI,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY & COUNTY OF
HONOLULU, ET AL.,
Defendants.
_______________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL NO. 23-00223 SASP-KJM
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFF ANNAPURNA
NEMANI’S THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS PLAINTIFF ANNAPURNA NEMANI’S THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
On May 24, 2023, Plaintiff Annapurna Nemani (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro
se, filed her original Complaint. ECF No. 1. On April 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed a
Third Amended Complaint, which is the operative pleading in this case. ECF No.
85; see also ECF No. 92 at 28.
The Court scheduled a Final Pretrial Conference for January 29, 2026, at
9:30 a.m. ECF No. 107 at 3 ¶ 12. Plaintiff failed to appear at the Final Pretrial
Conference. ECF No. 120. In addition, Plaintiff failed to submit a Final Pretrial
Conference Statement, as required by Rule 16.4 of the Local Rules of Practice for
the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. LR16.4(b); see also
ECF No. 107 at 3 ¶ 13.
Case 1:23-cv-00223-SASP-KJM Document 137 Filed 02/25/26 Page 1 of 6
PageID.<pageID>

2
On January 30, 2026, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause
(“01/30/2026 OSC”), which ordered Plaintiff to show cause “in writing, by
February 9, 2026, why she should not be sanctioned for failure to file a Final
Pretrial Conference Statement and failure to appear at the Final Pretrial
Conference.” ECF No. 121 at 2. On February 9, 2026, Defendants City and
County of Honolulu and Ashley Mae Nuesca filed a Position Statement Regarding
the 01/30/2026 OSC. ECF No. 122.
On February 13, 2026, Plaintiff belatedly filed a document that, in part,
addressed the 01/30/2026 OSC (“02/13/2026 Filing”). ECF No. 132. That same
day, based on Plaintiff’s explanation of her personal circumstances in the
02/13/2026 Filing, the Court issued an entering order directing Plaintiff to file a
Final Pretrial Conference Statement by February 23, 2026 (“02/13/2026 EO”).
ECF No. 133. The Court also stated that it would hold the 01/30/2026 OSC in
abeyance in the meantime. Id. In addition, the Court gave the following warning:
“If Plaintiff fails to file a final pretrial statement, the Court will find and
recommend that the district court dismiss the case.” Id.
On February 23, 2026, Plaintiff filed a “‘FINAL STATEMENT,’ AND
OPPOSITION (WITH CAUSE) TO DISMISSAL” (“02/23/2026 Filing”). ECF
No. 136. The 02/23/2026 Filing addresses, among other things, the 02/13/2026
EO. The Court finds, however, that even liberally construed, the 02/23/2026 Filing
cannot serve as Plaintiff’s Final Pretrial Conference Statement.
Case 1:23-cv-00223-SASP-KJM Document 137 Filed 02/25/26 Page 2 of 6
PageID.<pageID>

3
As the Court explained in the 01/30/2026 OSC, “[t]he Final Pretrial
Conference Statement is a significant document that directs the parties to provide
22 categories of information to the court and other parties, including the alleged
basis for jurisdiction, witnesses to be called, exhibits, outstanding discovery or
motions, status of settlement discussions, and estimated length of trial.” ECF No.
121 at 1. Plaintiff does not address any of these categories in her 02/23/2026
Filing. Rather, Plaintiff, among other things, reiterates and elaborates on the
personal circumstances she previously explained in the 02/13/2026 Filing.
“It is within the inherent power of the court to sua sponte dismiss a case for
lack of prosecution.” Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962)); see also Pagano v. OneWest
Bank, F.S.B., CV. No. 11-00192 DAE-RLP, 2012 WL 74034, at *6 (D. Haw. Jan.
10, 2012) (citing Link, 370 U.S. at 629–31 (“The power to invoke this sanction is
necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and
to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.”)). The court must
weigh five factors to determine whether to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution or
failure to comply with a court order: (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 defendant; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5)
the public policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits (collectively, the
“Pagtalunan factors”). Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002)
Case 1:23-cv-00223-SASP-KJM Document 137 Filed 02/25/26 Page 3 of 6
PageID.<pageID>

4
(citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992)). For the
reasons discussed below, the Court finds that dismissal of the Third Amended
Complaint is appropriate given Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.
First, the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of this litigation weighs
in favor of dismissal because this case has been pending since May 2023, and
Plaintiff has failed to comply with basic requirements to proceed to trial. See In re
Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1234 (9th Cir.
2006) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing cases
after concluding, in part, that such cases “had been pending for close to, or over, a
year without forward movement, and that such lack of diligence does not serve the
public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation”).
Second, the Court’s need to manage its docket weighs strongly in favor of
dismissal. Plaintiff’s failure to attend the January 29, 2026 Final Pretrial
Conference and comply with submission deadlines has interfered with the Court’s
ability to manage its docket and wasted the Court’s time. In addition, “[i]t is
incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket without being subject to routine
noncompliance of litigants.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (citation omitted).
Third, the risk of prejudice to the defendants weighs strongly in favor of
dismissal. The defendants’ attorney appeared at the January 29, 2026 Final Pretrial
Conference and has taken steps (such as filing motions in limine) to prepare for
trial. See ECF Nos. 120, 123–30. The defendants also filed a Motion for
Case 1:23-cv-00223-SASP-KJM Document 137 Filed 02/25/26 Page 4 of 6
PageID.<pageID>

5
Summary Judgment, which is pending with the district court. ECF No. 109.
Given the resources the defendants have expended to defend against Plaintiff’s
claims up to this point, they will suffer prejudice if this case continues without
Plaintiff’s meaningful participation. Plaintiff’s intermittent absence and inaction
preclude a timely resolution of the case for the defendants. See Pagtalunan,
291 F.3d at 642 (citing Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 131
(9th Cir. 1987)).
Fourth, less drastic sanctions are not appropriate. The Court sympathized
with the circumstances Plaintiff explained in her 02/13/2026 Filing. The Court
thus granted Plaintiff another opportunity to satisfy her obligation to file a Final
Pretrial Conference Statement. Rather than take that opportunity, though, Plaintiff
chose to file a document that does not relate in any way to trial preparation.
Simply put, although the Court warned Plaintiff in the 02/13/2026 EO that this
Court would find and recommend dismissal if Plaintiff failed to file a Final Pretrial
Conference Statement, Plaintiff has made it clear that she does not intend to
comply with court deadlines or orders. This fourth factor thus weighs strongly in
favor of dismissal.
Fifth, the Court acknowledges that public policy favors disposition of cases
on their merits. Dreith v. Nu Image, Inc., 648 F.3d 779, 788 (9th Cir. 2011)
(citation omitted). Thus, this final factor weighs against dismissal. This Court
finds, however, that because four of the factors weigh in favor of dismissal, this
Case 1:23-cv-00223-SASP-KJM Document 137 Filed 02/25/26 Page 5 of 6
PageID.<pageID>

6
factor is outweighed. Malone, 833 F.2d at 133 n.2. Accordingly, dismissal is
appropriate.
In addition, because three of the five Pagtalunan factors strongly weigh in
favor of dismissal, the Court recommends that the district court dismiss the Third
Amended Complaint with prejudice. See In re Lagmay, CIV. NO. 15-00166
DKW/RLP, 2015 WL 5970667, at *2 (D. Haw. Oct. 13, 2015) (stating that
dismissal with prejudice is appropriate when at least three of the Pagtalunan
factors weighed “strongly” in support of dismissal), aff’d sub nom., Lagmay v.
Nobriga, No. 15-17068, 2016 WL 7407294 (9th Cir. Dec. 22, 2016).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, February 25, 2026.
Nemani v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, et al., Civil No. 23-00223 SASP-KJM; Findings and
Recommendation to Dismiss Plaintiff Annapurna Nemani’s Third Amended Complaint with Prejudice
Case 1:23-cv-00223-SASP-KJM Document 137 Filed 02/25/26 Page 6 of 6
PageID.<pageID>