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.

Williams v. Sequeira

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

July 5, 2016

EMANUEL WILLIAMS, #A6021884, Plaintiff,
v.
FRANCIS X. SEQUEIRA, DELAN PALEKA, Defendants.

          ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

          Leslie E. Kobayashi United States District Judge

         Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Emanuel William's prisoner civil rights complaint. Williams alleges Halawa Correctional Facility ("HCF") Warden Francis X. Sequeira and Captain Delan Paleka violated his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

         The court has screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b)(1). For the following reasons, the Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim, with leave granted to amend as limited below.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The Complaint provides little detail to support Williams's claims. He alleges Defendants Sequeira and Paleka denied him: (1) an "Administrative Review Proceeding" on four separate occasions over a four month period (Count I); and (2) educational, occupational, and social adjustment programs (Count II). Williams provides no other pertinent details or facts in support of these claims.

         II. SCREENING

         The court must screen all prisoner civil actions commenced pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), or brought by prisoners seeking redress from government entities, officers, or employees, see 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).

         A complaint 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). This "does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).

         A complaint must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. A claim is plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; see also Johnson v. City of Shelby, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 135 S.Ct. 346, 347 (2014) (per curiam) ("A plaintiff . . . must plead facts sufficient to show that her claim has substantive plausibility.").

         To determine whether a complaint satisfies Rule 8(a)(2), a court must first identify the elements of the plaintiff's claim(s) and then determine whether those elements could be proven on the facts pleaded. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675.

         A pro se litigant's complaint is "held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). The court construes the pleadings in the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff and accepts all factual allegations in the complaint as true. Id. Leave to amend should be granted unless it appears that amendment is futile. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

         III. DISCUSSION

         "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.

         Section 1983 requires a connection between a defendant's actions and a plaintiff's allegations. SeeMonell v. Dep't of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). "A person ‘subjects' another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required ...


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.