United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND ACTION
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) &
Derrrick R. Watson United States District Judge
the court is pro se Plaintiff Todd James Raines' first
amended prisoner civil rights complaint ("FAC").
Doc. No. 10. Raines alleges Hawaii Department of Public
Safety ("DPS") Mainland Branch Unit
("MBU") Contract Monitors Scott Jinbo and Jeanette
Baltero, and Saguaro Correctional Center ("SCC")
MBU Administrator Shari Kimoto (collectively,
"Defendants") violated his right to due process
under the Fourteenth Amendment, Article I, Section Five of
the Hawaii Constitution, and Hawaii Revised Statutes
§§ 92F, 706-669, and 706-770. Raines further
alleges state common law claims of negligence and defamation.
Raines invokes federal jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1983 and 1985, and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
following reasons, the FAC and this action are DISMISSED with
prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b).
is serving a term of life with parole for Murder, and five
years for Forgery in the Second Degree. See State v.
Raines, 1PC85-0-000146 (Haw. 1st Cir. 1999), Dkt. No.
(last visited July 7, 2016). In 1999, the Hawaii Paroling
Authority ("HPA") set Raines' minimum term at
forty years. FAC, Doc. No. 10, PageID #126. In 2004, the HPA
reduced that minimum term to thirty-five years. Id.
On or about May 23, 2016, after Raines commenced this action,
the HPA reduced his minimum term to thirty years.
claims that on or about September 25, 2014, SCC Assistant
Warden Griego charged him with violating SCC policies:
"C-9 Failure To Follow/C-12 Hindering, " and
transferred him to a segregated housing unit. Id.,
PageID #124. SCC officials notified Defendants of Raines'
charges on or about September 26, 2014. On September 30,
2014, Raines was found guilty of both charges and sentenced
to sixty days in disciplinary segregation.
about October 1, 2014, Defendants Jinbo and Baltero reviewed
Raines' new charges, allegedly converted them to
non-equivalent DPS misconduct violations, and Dated this
information into Raines' prison file. Raines alleges
Jinbo and Baltero had no authority to edit his institutional
asserts this change in his institutional file affected his
consideration for parole and delayed his ability to
participate in programs required for parole consideration,
such as the DPS work-furlough program. Raines does not
explain Defendant Kimoto's actions or involvement in any
of his claims, although he broadly alleges that
"Defendants" violated his rights in each of his
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). The court must set conclusory factual
allegations aside, accept non-conclusory factual allegations
as true, and determine 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)). Plausibility does
not mean "probability, " but it requires "more
than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully." Id. at 678.
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).
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, ...