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.

Oyadomari v. Chun

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

July 28, 2016

WILLIAM K. OYADOMARI, Plaintiff,
v.
ACOS CHUN, MIKE, MICHAEL, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED

          Leslie E. Kobayashi United States District Judge

         On May 25, 2016, pro se Plaintiff William K. Oyadomari (“Plaintiff”) filed his Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (“Complaint”) and, on June 2, 2016, he filed his Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“Application”). [Dkt. nos. 1, 4.] Plaintiff brings claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his rights under the United States Constitution. [Complaint at 4.]

         Because Plaintiff has applied to proceed without prepaying fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), this Court must screen the Complaint and dismiss any claim that it concludes: “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

         DISCUSSION

         I. Claims Against Defendant Hoffman

         This Court has conducted a preliminary screening of the Complaint, and it appears that Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendant Nick Hoffman, who Plaintiff identifies as the “Warden/Dean” of O.C.C.C., [1] and who Plaintiff sues in his official and individual capacity (“Defendant Hoffman”). 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 Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Such a dismissal may be made without notice where the claimant cannot possibly win relief.” (citations omitted)); Alexio v. Obama, CIV. NO. 15-00507 JMS-BMK, 2015 WL 9216562, at *3 (D. Hawai'i Dec. 16, 2015) (“the court may dismiss a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) if it fails to ‘contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face’” (citations and some internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009))). Plaintiff has not plead sufficient factual allegations regarding how Defendant Hoffman allegedly violated his constitutional rights. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676 (“Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government- official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.”).

         This Court is therefore inclined to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Hoffman, with leave to amend. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Unless 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.”). This Court EMPHASIZES that this is merely an inclination based on its preliminary review of Plaintiff’s Complaint. If Plaintiff can address the issue regarding the timeliness of his claims, discussed in Section III, this Court will conduct a full screening of Plaintiff’s claims.

         II. Other Defendants

         Plaintiff also sues:

1) “Michael” and a “Mike” - each in their official and individual capacities - both of whom Plaintiff identifies as “Head Shift Supervisor” of the adult corrections officers (“ACOs”) for OCCC, Module 7 and Annex 2; [Complaint at 1-3;]
2) “Watson” - in his official and individual capacities - who Plaintiff identifies as a “prisoners Transporter” for OCCC; [id. at 3;] and
3) “Chun” - in his official and individual capacities - who Plaintiff identifies as both the “Dean/Warden” of OCCC and an ACO [id. at 1, 3].

         Based on this Court’s preliminary review, Plaintiff’s Complaint may state a claim against these defendants. However, even if Plaintiff’s claims against them survive the screening process, Plaintiff has not plead sufficient allegations about either “Michael, ” “Mike, ” “Watson, ” or “Chun” to identify any of them for service.

         If Plaintiff can address the timeliness issue, this Court is inclined to allow Plaintiff’s claims against “Michael, ” “Mike, ” “Watson, ” and “Chun” to go forward, provided that he amends his Complaint to include sufficient information to identify them for service. This Court EMPHASIZES that this is merely an inclination based on its preliminary review of Plaintiff’s ...


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.