United States District Court, D. Hawaii
WILLIAM K. OYADOMARI, Plaintiff,
STATE OF HAWAII, OAHU COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Defendants
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AND DENY THE APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN
KENNETH J. MANSFIELD, Magistrate Judge.
April 4, 2016, Plaintiff William K. Oyadomari
("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint with this Court,
proceeding pro se and seeking relief for what appears to be
various constitutional claims against the State of Hawaii and
the Oahu Criminal Correctional Center. See
ECF No. 1 (emphasis added). The Court assumes that Plaintiff
intended to name the Oahu Community Correctional Center
("O.C.C.C.") not the Oahu Criminal
Correctional Center, and will proceed based on that
understanding. Plaintiff has also filed two applications to
move before the Court in forma pauperis ("I.F.P.")
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915, the first on April 8, 2016
("Application I") and the second on April 12, 2016
("Application II"). See ECF No. 5, 6.
Application I and II are nearly identical except that in one
application Plaintiff omitted a required response to a single
question. Id . Because Applications I and II are
substantively requesting the same relief, the Court will
consolidate both and rule on them as one. For the reasons
that follow, the Court FINDS and RECOMMENDS that the District
Court DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint and GRANT leave to
amend any potential claims arising under 42 U.S.C. section
1983 ("Section 1983") as discussed below. The Court
also RECOMMENDS that the District Court DENY Plaintiff's
Complaint consists of eight numbered paragraphs from which
the Court can discern four potential "claims."
See ECF No. 1 at 1. First, paragraphs one through
three generally allege that the O.C.C.C. failed to provide
adequate clothing. Id. Specifically, Plaintiff
claims that "each prisoner upon entry shall be given a
complete prisoner's uniform... staff did not give me
clothes for 22 days even with numerous [requests for
clothes]." Id. Second, in paragraph four,
Plaintiff complains that he did not receive a razor necessary
for grooming. Id. Third, paragraphs five, seven, and
eight appear to allege that the food offered at the O.C.C.C.
was both insufficient and of poor quality. Id.
Specifically, Plaintiff states that "three food meal(s)
portions w[ere] not given to me, " followed by a claim
that "food meal(s) were mainly cabbage soup with one
portion, thumb size beef." Id. According to
Plaintiff, the effect of the food conditions overall resulted
in "starvation" causing him to "lose
thirty-three pounds while incarcerated at Hawaii-O.C.C.C.
prison." Id. Finally, paragraph six states only
that Plaintiff "made grievances" with respect to
all of his complaints. Plaintiff provides no further details
and does not elaborate on the nature of the causes of action
for which legal relief may be appropriate. The events at
issue correspond to an undated three-month period of
incarceration, which occurred some time before Plaintiff
filed his Complaint. The Complaint was hand-dated March 31,
2016, but received by the Court on April 4, 2016.
requests $80, 000 in damages from the State of Hawaii for
pain and suffering he describes as being "treated worse
than an animal." ECF No. 1 at 2.
has applied to the Court to proceed in forma pauperis. A
court may authorize the commencement or prosecution of any
suit without prepayment of fees by a person who submits an
affidavit that the person is unable to pay such fees. 28
U.S.C. 1915(a)(1). An applicant is entitled to in forma
pauperis relief when he can show that he "cannot because
of his poverty pay or give security for the costs [of
litigation] and still be able to provide himself and
dependents with the necessities of life." Adkins v.
E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc., 335 U.S. 331, 339
(1948) (internal quotations omitted). However, a court may
deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset and
dismiss the complaint if it appears from the face of the
proposed complaint that the action is frivolous, fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2); see Tripati v.
First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th
Cir. 1987); Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d
1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998). A complaint is frivolous if
"it has no arguable substance of law or fact."
Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1370 (citations omitted);
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The
term frivolous "embraces not only the inarguable legal
conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation."
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325.
court dismisses the complaint, it should grant leave to amend
even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless the
court determines that the pleading could not possibly be
cured by the allegation of other facts. Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); see
also Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1370. Specifically,
"pro se plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis must
also be given an opportunity to amend their complaint unless
it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint
could not be cured by amendment.'" Tripati,
821 F.2d at 1370 (quoting Franklin v. Murphy, 745
F.2d 1221, 1228 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984)).
it is not entirely clear, Plaintiff's claims against the
State of Hawaii and the correctional facility, O.C.C.C.,
appear to allege constitutional violations under Section
1983. ECF No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff seeks $80, 000 in damages.
ECF No. 1 at 2. Except for Plaintiff's statements
associated with food conditions, the Complaint fails to
articulate any other cognizable claims. Plaintiff also fails
to name any proper Defendants. The Court therefore recommends
that the Complaint be dismissed with leave to amend on any
potential claims under Section 1983, but that the claims
against the State of Hawaii and state agencies be dismissed
with prejudice as failing to state a legal claim.
Eleventh Amendment Bars Plaintiff's Claims Against the
well settled that under the Eleventh Amendment, a state is
immune from suit brought in federal court by its own citizens
or citizens of other states. Papasan v. Allain, 478
U.S. 265, 275 (1986); Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v.
Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 (1984). Federal court actions
against agencies or instrumentalities of a state are also
barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Shaw v. State of Cal.
Dep't. of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 788 F.2d 600,
603 (9th Cir. 1986). A suit against state officials, in their
official capacities, is the same as a suit against the state
itself and therefore is subject to the Eleventh Amendment.
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166-67 (1985).
the state unequivocally waives sovereign immunity or Congress
exercises its power under the Fourteenth Amendment to
override the immunity, the state, its agencies, and its
officials (acting in their official capacities) are immune
from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Will v. Michigan
Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989);
Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 99.
because Plaintiff's Complaint names the State of Hawaii
and its agencies, the Court finds that these claims are
barred by the Eleventh Amendment and cannot be cured.
SeeP.R. Aqueduct & ...