The opinion of the court was delivered by: David Alan Ezra United States District Judge
ORDER: (1) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND (2) DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d), the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing. After reviewing Plaintiffs' motion and complaint, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Injunctive Relief ("Mot.," Doc. # 2) and DISMISSES the Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ("Compl," Doc. # 1.)
On February 14, 2012, Plaintiffs The Mama Loa Foundation, The Mama Loa Trust, and C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed a Complaint and a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Injunctive Relief ("Motion") against the State of Hawaii, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs ("OHA"), Colette Machado, and OHA trustees (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiffs appear to seek to enjoin OHA and the State of Hawaii from proceeding on a "land settlement" of certain land. (Mot. at 2.) Plaintiffs allege in both their Motion and Complaint that OHA: usurped the authority and violated the Civil Rights of Mama Loa also as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the US [sic]
Constitution, have dismissed Mama Loa as the originator of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, which is supported by formal, legal documentation, have advanced illegal actions similar to what the conspirators did to Queen Liliuokalani, and have contribute [sic] to damages suffered by Mama Loa. (Mot. at 1--2; Compl. at 1--2.)
Based on the following, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion because Plaintiffs have not met the standard for issuance of an injunction. The Court also DISMISSES the Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
I. Temporary Restraining Order "The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is identical to the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction." Brown Jordan Int'l, Inc. v. Mind's Eye Interiors, Inc., 236 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1154 (D. Haw. 2002). In Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008), the Supreme Court explained that "[a] plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." See also New Motor Vehicle Bd. of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977) (A plaintiff "seeking a restraining order must make a persuasive showing of irreparable harm and likelihood of prevailing on the merits.").
A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
The court may dismiss a complaint pursuant Rule 12(b)(6) on its own motion. SeeOmar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) ("A trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under [Rule] 12(b)(6). Such a dismissal may be made without notice where the claimant cannot possibly win relief.");
Ricotta v. California, 4 F. Supp. 2d 961, 968 n.7 (S.D. Cal. 1998) ("The Court can dismiss a claim sua sponte for a Defendant who has not filed a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).");see also Baker v. Dir., U.S. Parole Comm'n, 916 F.2d 725, 727 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (holding that district court may dismiss cases sua sponte pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) without notice where plaintiff could not prevail on complaint as alleged). Additionally, a paid complaint that is "obviously frivolous" does not confer federal subject matter jurisdiction and may be dismissed sua sponte before service of process. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004) ("[I]t is the obligation of both district court and counsel to be alert to jurisdictional requirements."); Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291 (9th Cir. 1995) ("[D]ismissal of Branson's complaint was required because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction . . . .").
B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
A court may also sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8. Rule 8 mandates that a complaint include a "short and plain statement of the claim," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and that each allegation "be simple, concise, and direct." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). A complaint that is so confusing that its "'true substance, if any, is well disguised'" may be dismissed sua sponte for failure to satisfy Rule 8. Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep't, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Gillibeau v. City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 431 (9th Cir. 1969); Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995) (stating that a district court has the power to sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8 where the complaint is so confused, ambiguous, or unintelligible that its true substance is well disguised); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996) ("Something labeled a complaint but written . . . , prolix in evidentiary detail, yet without simplicity, conciseness and clarity as ...