Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Keliihuluhulu v. Strance

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

May 19, 2016

KELIIHULUHULU aka ALFRED NAPAHUELUA SPINNEY, Plaintiff,
v.
ELIZABETH ANN STRANCE, MELVIN FUJINO, JOSEPH P. FLORENDO, JR., et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

          DERRICK K. WATSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         INTRODUCTION

         On May 16, 2016, Plaintiff Keliihuluhulu also known as Alfred Napahuelua Spinney, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action against three Hawaii state court judges for conduct taken in their official judicial capacities. Beyond his claim to be the Prime Minister of the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, his claims are barely discernible. The complaint appears to allege that the three judges named in the suit signed warrants that caused Plaintiff to be arrested or detained sometime in 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2016 on the Island of Hawai‘i. Because this action is wholly frivolous-Plaintiff fails to state a claim, defendants are absolutely immune from suit, and the Court is without subject matter jurisdiction-the Court DISMISSES the complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and GRANTS Plaintiff limited leave to file an amended complaint no later than June 10, 2016.

         DISCUSSION

         I. The Complaint is Dismissed

         Mindful that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court liberally construes his pleadings. See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The Supreme Court has instructed the federal courts to liberally construe the ‘inartful pleading’ of pro se litigants.”) (citing Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam)). The Court also recognizes that “[u]nless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect . . . a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.” Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995). Having carefully reviewed the complaint and Exhibit A attached thereto, the Court concludes that Plaintiff fails to state a claim or provide any basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, for the reasons stated below.

         A. Failure To State A Claim Under Rule 12(b)(6)

         The Court may dismiss a complaint on its own motion. See Omar 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. Cal., 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).”).

         A plaintiff must allege “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Weber v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 521 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008). This tenet-that the court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in the complaint-“is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Accordingly, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Rather, “[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In other words, “the factual allegations that are taken as true must plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief, such that it is not unfair to require the opposing party to be subjected to the expense of discovery and continued litigation.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011).

         None of the factual allegations here plausibly suggests an entitlement to relief. The complaint states, in part -

17. At all relevant times in 2010 Defendant Strance is possessed and exercised of judicial authority over the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit Court Kona Division State of Hawaii; Strance’s judicial authority included the authority to issue warrants for the arrest and detention of persons conducting within the territory of [the] State of Hawaii; order sheriffs of [the] State of Hawaii to serve such warrants and make such arrest with [the] territory of [the] State of Hawaii.
18. At all relevant times in 2011 Defendant Fujino is possessed and exercised of judicial authority over the District Court of the Third Circuit North Kohala Division State of Hawaii. Defendant Fujino’s judicial authority included the authority to issue warrants for the arrest and detention of persons conducting within the territory of [the] State of Hawaii; order sheriffs of [the] State of Hawaii to serve such warrants and make such arrest with [the] territory of [the] State of Hawaii.
19. At all relevant times in 2010 Defendant Florendo is possessed and exercised of judicial authority over the District Court of the Third Circuit North Kohala Division State of Hawaii. Defendant Florendo’s judicial authority included the authority to issue warrants for the arrest and detention of persons conducting within the territory of [the] State of Hawaii; order sheriffs of [the] State of Hawaii to serve such warrants and make such arrest with some territory of [the] State of Hawaii.
21. Acting in coordination with County of Hawaii Police; County of Hawaii Prosecutors, State of Hawaii Public Safety employees and other employees of [the] State of Hawaii Judiciary, including Defendants Fujino and Florendo and State of Hawaii Sheriffs’ Department, Defendant Strance caused me to be deprived of my liberty by allowing her warrant dated 3/15/12 to be served on me while I am with the Kingdom and caused me to be taken, on 5/16/2016, from a certain ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.