In Re Blaisdell, 252 P.3d 63

Blaisdell, an Hawaiʻi inmate, challenged confiscation of audio tapes alleged to prove prosecutorial misconduct in his 1994 criminal case.
In 2008 Blaisdell sought return of legal materials; the circuit treated the filing as a civil complaint (FOIA-like) but Blaisdell did not serve anyone or name defendants.
The circuit denied injunctive relief and later, in 2009, entered a Final Separate Judgment dismissing all claims with prejudice and naming fourteen defendants sua sponte.
Blaisdell appealed; the ICA affirmed the circuit court’s judgment on the basis the appeal lacked merit, prompting Blaisdell’s writ of certiorari to Hawaiʻi Supreme Court.
The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding dismissals with prejudice were improper where Blaisdell did not name or serve defendants, and remanded to dismiss without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did ICA err in affirming prejudice dismissal?	Blaisdell contends dismissal with prejudice was improper since no defendants were served or properly before the court.	The circuit court had authority to sua sponte dismiss under HRCP Rule 41(b) with prejudice after failure to serve.	Yes; dismissal with prejudice reversed; vacate and remand to dismiss without prejudice.
Did circuit court lack jurisdiction over named defendants?	Defendants were not named or served, so the circuit court had no jurisdiction to dismiss with prejudice the fourteen defendants.	Circuit court possessed authority to dismiss under HRCP Rule 41(b) despite lack of service.	Yes; jurisdiction to dismiss with prejudice was improperly exercised; must be without prejudice.
Did the circuit court abuse discretion by denying return of Blaisdell's tapes and rights?	Tapes constitute evidence; denial impedes constitutional rights and due process.	No basis shown for mandatory return of property or relief.	Granted in part; court should reconsider relief consistent with dismissal without prejudice.

Shasteen, Inc. v. Hilton Hawaiian Village Joint Venture, 79 Hawai`i 103 (1995) (dismissal with prejudice requires deliberate delay or prejudice)
Bagalay v. Lahaina Restoration Foundation, 60 Haw. 125 (1978) (dismissal with prejudice as last resort; burden on showing prejudice)
Housing Fin. & Dev. Corp. v. Ferguson, 91 Hawai`i 81 (1999) (policy favoring merits-based adjudication)
Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawai`i 225 (1995) (preserves opportunity to have case heard on merits)
Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522 (9th Cir. 1976) (dismissal with prejudice warranted only for delay, prejudice, or contumacy)
Ellis v. Harland Bartholomew & Assocs., 1 Haw. App. 420 (1980) (unreasonable delays can support dismissal with prejudice)
Schilling v. Walworth County Park & Planning Comm'n, 805 F.2d 272 (7th Cir. 1986) (careful exercise of discretion; consider less severe sanctions)
Ellis v. Harland Bartholomew & Assoc., 620 P.2d 744 (1980) (debatable; (see above Haw. App. citation for parallel points))