United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(E)(2) &
Derrick K. Watson United States District Judge
the court is pro se Plaintiff Todd James Raines’
prisoner civil rights complaint. Raines is incarcerated at
the Saguaro Correctional Center (“SCC”) located
in Eloy, Arizona. Raines names the Hawaii Department of
Public Safety (“DPS”) in its official capacity,
and DPS Mainland Branch Unit Supervisor Scott Jinbo
(“Jinbo”), Contract Monitor Jeanette Baltero
(“Baltero”), and Does 1-10 in their official and
individual capacities (collectively,
invokes federal jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. §§
1983, 1985, and 1988. He claims Defendants violated his
rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and
Article I, Section Five of the Hawaii Constitution.
See Compl., Doc. No. 1. Raines further alleges
Defendants violated Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 92F, and
state common law. Id.
Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable
claim for relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b). He is granted leave to amend to
correct the Complaint’s deficiencies on or before July
2010, Raines sued Corrections Corporation of America
(“CCA”), which owns and operates SCC, for
religious discrimination. See Raines v. Corr. Corp. of
America, No. CV-10-01817 (D. Ariz. 2010). On November
16, 2011, the parties signed a stipulated settlement, and
Raines dismissed all claims. Id., Doc. No. 100.
September 24, 2014, Raines attended a Rosh Hashanah service
at SCC, where he complained to the SCC Chaplain that it was
being held on the wrong day. Raines was issued disciplinary
report No. DR #970-14, for violations of SCC/CCC policies
“C-9 Failure To Follow/C-12 Hindering.” Compl.
Doc. No. 1, PageID #8. On September 25, 2014, SCC Assistant
Warden Benjamin Griego ordered Raines moved to segregation.
On September 30, 2014, Raines was found guilty of both
charges and sentenced to sixty days disciplinary segregation.
about October 1, 2014, Raines says Defendants Jinbo and
Baltero “arbitrarily, deceitfully, and irrationally
converted the [CCA] DR #970-14, ” C-9 and C-12
violations, into DPS misconduct violations of “Rule
4.3a7(12)” and “Rule 4.3a8(11), ”
respectively, and entered that information into his DPS
institutional file. Id., PageID #9-10. Raines alleges
Jinbo and Baltero’s actions violated his state-created
liberty interests without due process of law, increased his
sentence, and adversely affected his consideration for
1, 2015, Raines filed a motion to “disaffirm” the
settlement agreement in Raines v. Corr. Corp. of
America, No. CV-10-01817, Doc. No. 102, which the
district court denied, Doc. No. 110.
April 25, 2016, Raines commenced this suit. He alleges three
causes of action under the Fourteenth Amendment for violation
of due process (pursuant to liberty interests allegedly
arising under Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 92F, 706-669,
& 706-670) (Counts I, III, and V). See id.,
PageID #8-10, 12. Raines also alleges six state law claims,
three under Article I, Section 5 of the Hawaii Constitution
(Counts II, IV, VI), defamation (Count VII), negligence
(Count VIII), and a claim for violation of Haw. Rev. Stat.
§ 92F, et seq. (Count IX). See id., PageID #11,
13-18. Raines seeks declaratory, compensatory, and punitive
relief, and an order expunging his converted SCC/CCA charges
from his DPS institutional file.
court must screen all prisoner civil actions seeking redress
from a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). Complaints or claims that are frivolous,
malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek relief from an
immune defendant must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(c)(1). During screening, the court sets conclusory
factual allegations aside, accepts non-conclusory factual
allegations as true, and determines whether these allegations
state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-80 (2009) (citing Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A
plausibility finding does not mean “probability,
” but it requires “more than a sheer possibility
that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. at
678. The court should “draw on its judicial experience
and common sense” to determine plausibility.
Id. at 679.
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). A complaint
that lacks a cognizable legal theory or alleges insufficient
facts under a cognizable legal theory fails to state a claim.
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d
696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). “Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 679; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
to amend should be granted if it appears the plaintiff can
correct the complaint’s defects. Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). A court has
the discretion to dismiss a complaint without leave to amend,
however, when “it is clear that the complaint could not
be saved by any amendment.” Sylvia Landfield Trust
v. City of L.A., 729 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2013).
Federal Jurisdiction: 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985,
invokes jurisdiction under § 1983. “To sustain an
action under section 1983, a plaintiff must show ‘(1)
that the conduct complained of was committed by a person
acting under color of state law; and (2) that the conduct
deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or
statutory right.’” Hydrick v. Hunter,
500 F.3d 978, 987 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted),
vacated and remanded on other grounds, 556 U.S. 1256
(2009); see also West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48
(1988); 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Additionally, a plaintiff must
allege that he suffered a specific injury as a result of the
conduct of a particular defendant, and he must allege an
affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of that
defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377
also invokes jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1985,
alleging Defendants conspired to violate his rights. To state
a conspiracy under § 1985(3), a plaintiff must show: (1)
a conspiracy; (2) to deprive any person or class of persons
of equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and
immunities under the laws; (3) an act by one of the
conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy; and (4) a
personal injury, property damage or a deprivation of any
right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.
Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 641 (9th Cir.
§ 1985 derives from the Thirteenth Amendment, a
plaintiff must also allege “invidiously discriminatory,
racial or class-based animus.” Caldeira v. Cty. of
Kauai, 866 F.2d 1175, 1182 (9th Cir. 1989);
Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 641. If an alleged conspiracy
is predicated on the same allegations as the § 1983
claim, the absence of a § 1983 claim precludes a §
1985 conspiracy claim. Id. at 1182. A conspiracy
claim under § 1985 “must allege facts to support
the allegation that the defendants conspired together. A mere
allegation of conspiracy without factual specificity is
insufficient.” Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police
Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir. 1988); see
also Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1039
(9th Cir. 1991).
Raines invokes jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1988,
which authorizes the award of attorney’s fees to a
prevailing party. Pro se litigants, however, are not entitled
to an award of attorneys’ fees under §
1988.See Friedman v. Arizona, 912 F.2d
328, 333 n.2 (9th Cir. 1990); Gonzalez v. Kangas,
814 F.2d 1411, 1412 (9th Cir. 1987); cf. Kay v.
Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432, 437-38 (1991) (no award to
attorneys representing themselves); Elwood v.
Drescher, 456 F.3d 943, 946-48 (9th Cir. 2006)
(discussing pro se ...