The opinion of the court was delivered by: Susan Oki Mollway Chief United States District Judge
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IN PART AND DIRECTING SERVICE
Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Buddy P. Kamakeeaina's first amended prisoner civil rights complaint ("FAC").*fn1 Plaintiff, now incarcerated at the Federal Detention Center, Honolulu ("FDC"), complains about incidents that allegedly occurred during his arrest and detention by the Honolulu Police Department ("HPD"), and after his transfer to the Oahu Community Correctional Center ("OCCC").
Plaintiff names as Defendants: the City and County of Honolulu ("C&C"); HPD Officers Tyler Maalo, Nathan Patopoff, William Daubner, Oscar Willis, and Randall Rivera (collectively, "HPD Defendants"); and the State of Hawaii, along with Department of Public Safety officials ("DPS") Director Jodie Maesaka-Hirata, Health Care Administrator Wesley Mun, Grievance Officer Linda Rivera, Tom Leland, M.D., Peter Yamamoto, M.D., and Health Service Provider Tulia Pula (collectively, "DPS Defendants"). Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants denied him mental health care during his arrest, initial HPD detention, and later incarceration at OCCC, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, the American With Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
The court has screened the FAC under §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a) and dismisses it in part as discussed below. Plaintiff may proceed on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the HPD Defendants, Dr. Leland, and Dr. Yamamoto. Plaintiff's claims against DPS Defendants Maesaka-Hirata, Mun, Linda Rivera, and Pula, and all claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act are dismissed with prejudice.
The court must screen all civil actions brought by prisoners that relate to prison conditions and/or seek redress from a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if its claims are legally frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1).
A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim when it (1) lacks a cognizable legal theory; or (2) sets forth insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). To state a claim, a pleading must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While Rule 8 does not demand detailed factual allegations, "it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id.
The court must construe a pro se complaint liberally, accept all allegations of material fact as true, and construe those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). Leave to amend should be granted if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the defects of his or her complaint. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).
Plaintiff claims to have been diagnosed as mentally disabled due to post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"), bipolar I disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and chemical dependency. See FAC, ECF #18 at 9.*fn2 Plaintiff broadly asserts claims in two counts, although he alleges several claims within each Count.
In Count I, Plaintiff alleges that HPD and DPS Defendants in their individual capacities violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments when they failed to provide him with mental health care during his arrest and HPD detention, and thereafter while he was in DPS custody during his incarceration at OCCC.
Id., ECF #18 9-20 (Count I). Plaintiff first alleges that, despite having actual knowledge of his mental instability and suicidal ideation through observations during his arrest that they noted in his arrest documents, HPD Defendants failed to refer him for a mental health evaluation or care while he was in HPD custody from April 30 to May 3, 2010, in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 334-59(a)(1), and with deliberate indifference to his obvious medical needs. Id. at 10.
Plaintiff next asserts that DPS Defendants Pula, Dr. Leland, and Dr. Yamamoto failed to accurately document, diagnose, and treat his mental health issues while he was in custody at OCCC between May 3 2010, and April 19, 2011. Plaintiff states that he notified them of his mental health issues and requested mental health care, but that Pula, Dr. Leland, and Dr. Yamamoto denied his requests with deliberate indifference to his serious need for mental health care. Id. at 13.
Plaintiff asserts that DPS Director Maesaka-Hirata and Administrator Mun are liable to him because they initiated policies and procedures that were not operable or were not followed by their subordinates.
Plaintiff also asserts that DPS Defendants Mun and Linda Rivera violated his right to due process in their handling of his prison grievances.
Finally, Plaintiff claims that DPS Defendants violated his right to equal protection under the law, generally asserting that other inmates were treated more favorably than he was at OCCC.
In Count II, Plaintiff broadly alleges that all
Defendants in their official capacities, including the State of Hawaii and the C&C, violated the ADA and Rehabilitation Act by allegedly denying him mental health care. Id., ECF #18 at 21.
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring the State
of Hawaii and DPS to continue his mental health treatment, including psychotropic medication and therapy sessions, and to formally recognize his mental illnesses at all correctional facilities that Plaintiff may be incarcerated at in the future. Plaintiff also seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
A. The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments: Deliberate Indifference
Plaintiff claims that all Defendants violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee when he was arrested on April 30, 2010, in Criminal No. 10-1-000729,*fn4 and "was reclassified to a convicted prisoner due to [a] probation ...