CHIEF Judge Ramona V. Manglona of the District Court for the NMI has dismissed with prejudice the complaint of Zaji Obatala Zajradhara against CNMI Department of Labor Secretary Vicky Benavente over the non-payment of his Pandemic Unemployment Assistance.
In dismissing Zajradhara’s lawsuit, Judge Manglona also directed the court clerk to close the case.
On Aug. 13, after screening Zajradhara’s pro se application to proceed in forma pauperis, the judge also dismissed Zajradhara’s complaint against the DOL secretary for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but allowed him to amend his complaint.
According to an online legal dictionary, “pro se” is Latin for “in one’s own behalf”: someone who appears before the court without an attorney is considered pro se.
As for “forma pauperis,” it is a Latin term that means “in the manner of a pauper”: allowing a poor person to bring suit without liability for the costs of the suit.
The federal court directed Zajradhara to file his first amended complaint by Sept. 13, 2021 if he still wished to pursue his claim, and warned him that failure to file any amended complaint by the deadline would result in the court dismissing the action with prejudice and directing closure of the case.
Zajradhara timely sought an extension of time by an additional 45 days to file his amended complaint, which the court granted.
Judge Manglona then instructed Zajradhara to file his first amended complaint no later than Oct. 28, 2021.
To date, said Judge Manglona, which is over a month since the deadline, the court has not received any first amended complaint or any other filings from Zajradhara.
“It may be that plaintiff, having pursued an appeal of his denial of PUA benefits with the Regional VI Administrator pursuant to the U.S. Department of Labor Regulations cited in his motion for an extension of time, has found an alternative forum for his remedy,” Judge Manglona said.
Nevertheless, “it is well settled in this circuit that a district court has power to dismiss an action for want of prosecution on its own motion, both under Rule 41(b)… and under its local rule, or even in the absence of such rule,” the judge said.
Accordingly, “the court hereby DISMISSES this action with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close the case.”
In February 2020, Zajradhara asked the court to issue an order instructing DOL to pay him $7,380.
“I have already been adjudicated as a beneficiary of the Federal Pandemic Unemployment/PUA benefits. The DOL has purposely not paid my PUA benefits in quite some time even after repeated phone calls/emails,” Zajradhara said.
