Shanlyn Alohakeao Souza Park
How Judge Park rules, drawn from 15 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Park
Shanlyn Alohakeao Souza Park is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Park received a commission on October 15, 2024.
Judge Park's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Park, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Copy all counsel on email to Judge Park’s chambers.
“All email correspondence with the Court must copy all counsel of record in the case.”
Motions
A prefiling conference must be in real time; letters and email do not count.
“Letters or emails do not constitute a proper Local Rule 7.8 conference.”
Conferences
An off-island party seeking a remote appearance must request it by letter at least one week before the hearing.
“Counsel and pro se parties who are not located on the island of O‘ahu who wish to appear for hearings via telephone or video teleconference must submit a letter request to [email protected] at least one week prior to the hearing.”
Trial
Limit each motion in limine memorandum and opposition to five pages.
“Memoranda in support of MILs and any opposition shall not exceed five (5) pages.”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
How Judge Park decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a trademark dispute, found the plaintiffs' infringement claim plausible in significant part because the defendants' own filings with the trademark office demonstrated their intent: a party's own paper trail can supply the factual matter a complaint needs to survive dismissal.
“the Complaint, PI Motion, and their attachments, including Hinshaw IT's own applications to the USPTO, contain sufficient factual matter demonstrating intentional violations by Defendants of trademark law.”
In a post-removal detention case, the government had no travel document for the detainee and offered no concrete evidence about when one could be obtained. The court ordered release under supervision.
“And they offer no evidence as to when that may occur, whether there has been any progress since the request was made, and the likelihood — based on concrete evidence — that travel documents for Nguyen will be secured in the near future.”
In a challenge to Hawaii’s election-media statute, the judge found the law’s subjective risk standard too imprecise to give clear notice and permit evenhanded enforcement.
“This Court agrees that Act 191 is imbued with imprecision and ambiguity, rendering the statute unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Cautions
On a preliminary-injunction bond, a defendant's generalized, unquantified claims of harm (lost customers, lost "listing partnerships") were not enough to raise the bond above a nominal amount: a party opposing injunctive relief needs concrete figures, not general assertions.
“Defendants do not provide any detailed information as to the number of customers ‘active’ on the domain; the costs of investment in the domain; the costs of webpage development; and the list of partnerships that would vanish upon removal of the webpage... the Court FINDS that bond in the nominal amount of $1,000 is reasonable.”
A pro se civil-rights claim seeking to compel a prosecutor to investigate was dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, rather than given the routine extra chance to replead, once the requested relief ran into both prosecutorial immunity and the separation of powers.
“this Court finds Plaintiff's Complaint should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's request for relief violates the doctrine of separation of powers and the Complaint does not state a cognizable constitutional violation.”
In a detention challenge, the court treated arrests without recorded convictions as insufficient to invoke mandatory detention for specified criminal offenses; it ordered an individualized bond hearing.
“Under that definition, Regalado does not have a qualifying conviction under the statute: Respondents’ records reflect that each of the two arrests has no disposition.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Findings and Recommendations are adopted as the opinion and order of this Court. Plaintiff is granted forty-five (45) days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint.”
“the ‘Findings and Recommendation to Grant Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Default Judgment’, ECF No. 17, are adopted as the opinion and order of this Court.”
“this Court finds Plaintiff's Complaint should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's request for relief violates the doctrine of separation of powers and the Complaint does not state a cognizable constitutional violation. This Court further adopts Judge Porter's F&R.”
“the ‘Findings and Recommendation to Deny Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees and Dismiss the Complaint’, ECF No. 10, are adopted as the opinion and order of this Court.”
“the ‘Findings and Recommendation to Deny Plaintiff's Various Motions Regarding in Forma Pauperis Status and Fees on Appeal, ECF Nos. 262, 265, 269, 270’, ECF No. 271, are adopted as the opinion and order of this Court.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 51, is DENIED; and GoJump's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED.”
“GoJump's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. Pursuant to the granting of GoJump's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, this Court ORDERS that, unless and until a court directs otherwise, Defendants shall be enjoined and restrained...”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 55, is GRANTED as to Count I. As to the pendent state claims, Counts II-VI, they are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Huynh’s Petition, ECF No. 1, is GRANTED as to the warden.”
“Therefore, Respondents’ motion ‘to strike and to dismiss all respondents other than’ the warden is GRANTED.”
“Nguyen’s Petition, ECF No. 1, is GRANTED as to the warden.”
“Therefore, Respondents’ motion ‘to strike and to dismiss all respondents other than’ the warden is GRANTED.”
“the ‘Findings and Recommendation to Grant Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs and Dismiss the Complaint’, ECF No. 7, are adopted as the opinion and order of this Court.”
“the ‘Findings and Recommendation to (1) Dismiss Complaint With Leave to Amend and (2) Deny Application to Proceed Without Payment of Fees or Costs as Moot’, ECF No. 10, are adopted as the opinion and order of this Court.”
“the ‘Findings and Recommendation to (1) Dismiss Amended Complaint Without Leave to Amend and (2) Deny Application to Proceed Without Payment of Fees or Costs ’, ECF No. 16, are adopted as the opinion and order of this Court.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Caseload observations drawn from the same 2024-10-16 through 2024-12-18 sampling window as the motions below.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, not for Judge Park: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 570 | 4.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 152 | 3.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 398 | 5.8 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 12 | 28.9 months |
| Closed during trial | 8 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 570 | 4.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 624 | 4.8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 502 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 472 | 9.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 496 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 523 | 7.1 months |
| Sep 2019 | 511 | 9.1 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Park with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Park, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Park's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace