Bullock v. Honolulu Police Department et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
BENJAMIN ALLEN BULLOCK,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CITY AND COUNTY OF
HONOLULU; ET AL.,
Defendants.
________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 23-00394 JMS-KJM
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS
SECOND AMENDED PRISONER
CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS
SECOND AMENDED PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
On September 25, 2023, Plaintiff Benjamin Allen Bullock (“Bullock”),
proceeding pro se, filed a Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint. ECF No. 1. On
December 15, 2023, Bullock filed a Second Amended Prison Civil Rights
Complaint (“Second Amended Complaint”), which is the operative pleading in this
case. ECF No. 10.
The Court scheduled a final pretrial conference for March 12, 2026, at 9:45
a.m. ECF No. 53 at 3 ¶ 12. Bullock failed to appear at the final pretrial
conference. ECF No. 72. In addition, Bullock 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 (“Local Rules”).
LR16.4(b); see also ECF No. 53 at 3 ¶ 13.
Case 1:23-cv-00394-JMS-KJM Document 75 Filed 03/30/26 Page 1 of 5
PageID.<pageID>

2
The 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. The final pretrial conference is an equally significant milestone at
which the parties and the court address trial readiness, anticipated trial issues, and
settlement. A party may not simply ignore the final pretrial conference statement
deadline and the final pretrial conference.
On March 13, 2026, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“03/13/2026
OSC”), which was the third order to show cause that the Court had issued in this
case for Bullock’s inaction. ECF No. 73. In the 03/13/2026 OSC, the Court
ordered Bullock to show cause “in writing, by March 20, 2026, why he should not
be sanctioned for failure to file a final pretrial conference statement and failure to
appear at the final pretrial conference.” Id. at 2. Bullock failed to file a response
to the 03/13/2026 OSC.
DISCUSSION
“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.
Case 1:23-cv-00394-JMS-KJM Document 75 Filed 03/30/26 Page 2 of 5
PageID.<pageID>

3
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)
(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 Second Amended
Complaint is appropriate given Bullock’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 September 2023,
and Bullock 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”).
Case 1:23-cv-00394-JMS-KJM Document 75 Filed 03/30/26 Page 3 of 5
PageID.<pageID>

4
Second, the Court’s need to manage its docket weighs strongly in favor of
dismissal. Bullock’s failure to attend the March 12, 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. Bullock’s inaction has impaired the defendants’ ability to proceed to
trial and threatens to interfere with the resolution of this case. 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 has given
Bullock three warnings (in the form of orders to show cause) that failure to comply
with deadlines and otherwise meaningfully participate may result in dismissal.
Bullock has nevertheless continued to disregard deadlines. The Court thus
believes that less drastic sanctions would be futile. 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
Case 1:23-cv-00394-JMS-KJM Document 75 Filed 03/30/26 Page 4 of 5
PageID.<pageID>

5
finds, however, that because four of the factors weigh in favor of dismissal, this
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 Second
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, March 30, 2026.
Bullock v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, et al., Civil No. 23-00394 JMS-KJM; Findings and
Recommendation to Dismiss Second Amended Prison Civil Rights Complaint
Case 1:23-cv-00394-JMS-KJM Document 75 Filed 03/30/26 Page 5 of 5
PageID.<pageID>